ML19274F007
| ML19274F007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/03/1979 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7906070098 | |
| Download: ML19274F007 (76) | |
Text
hl
.k l.
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF S-3 RUI2 MAKING 2391 282 Place.
hTashington, D.
C.
Date.
Thursday, 3 May 1979 Pages 1-75 790607009E r.%,,.:
(2o2) 347-37co ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
Offic:slReponers ALL Nerth C pito! Street Washingten, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE. DAILY
,1,-.
3 m<.
n 1.
334618 7.-
~..
z a
~
.. ~...
. i...
~
. ~.
. ~..
v
.s, g
s r
.s r.
DISC 1. AIMER _ -
~.-
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the Unij;d States Thu~-sday, 3 Mav 19 ~ in the Nuclear Regulatcry Co= mission heid on e
Comission's or,T1ces at 1717 S
~ ' $b ben /aticn.
Th'is transcript n anca a o
een ie ed c rrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
fa
' De transcript is intended solely for general infoma'tional purposes.
As provided by 10 C.eR 9.103, it is not part of the femal og inroma recerd of da-ision of the matters discussed.
cxpressien2 c. opin 1~v rafle'e #inal determinations or f* $o la~ i e or er paper may be filed with the Ccmission in recee inc as the result of or addressed to any statement or ary.nen.
y contained herein, except as the Ccemission may authorize.
.=
2 3.9 L2 8 3 g
g g
S g
g g
9
- - ~
2 CR4618 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3l i
PUBLIC MEETING 5
CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF S-3 RULEMAKING 6
i 7
g Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.
W.
9 Washington, D.
C.
10 Thursday, 3 May 1979 11 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m.
l 12 BEFORE:
13 DR. JOSEPH M.
HENDRIE, Chairman 14 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 15 RICHARD T.
KENNEDY, Commissioner 16 PETER A.
BRADFORD, Commissioner 17 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 18 ALSO PRESENT:
10 Messrs. Sege, Eilperin, Slaggie, and Chilk.
20 2'
2391 284 22 23 24
..r.cer : meoorters, inc.
25
CR 4618 #18 MIMI/pv 3
l EEEEEEEEEEE I
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's come to order.
3 We continue here our discussion of the S-3 Order, to 1
4 deal with one or another of yesterday's comments.
We got a news {
5 release from the National Academy on the BEIR 3 results.
They 6
continue to adhere -- although in the minority view -- continue 7
to adhere to the linear hypothesis.
I will point out with 8
regard to present discussion, since the BEIR Report deals with 9
health effects, it's r.aally not germane to the rule.
i 10 Secondly, I had a chance to read the report, which 11 Commissioner Gilinsky had yesterday.
This turns out to be a l
12 literature survey of the literature on risks associated with I
i 13 nuclear power, prepared by the Academy and contributed to the i
14 CONAES' efforts, as it were.
I will note I have read it all the i
15 way through, looking for places where it might intersect the I
i 16 present discussion, and I don't find that it does.
17 Amoag other things, the GESMO reports were a primary 18 source for the back end of the fuel cycle sorts of quantities of 19 materials that might be released, along with other documents of 20 the same time frame.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You have proven your point, Joe..
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think I have at least satisfied 23 myself.
I I
24 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All we asked was for a member
- s-Federal Reoorters, Inc. l 25 l of the Commission staff to look at it.
239l 285 u
,g. _ _
4 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know whether I qualify.
2 (Laughter.)
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They apparently didn't have f
i 4
time.
l l
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Let us turn forthwith to 6
page 39 of the document in issue.
I I'
7 We have in hand -- remember, we were discussing 8
language, what all that meant and so on.
He have a -- we had 9
some draft language for a footnote, but beyond that we have i
10 before us today a draft of page 39 and 39-A that Steve Eilprerin 11 prepared, which, I must say, seems to me to deal with the kind 12 of things we were discussing in pretty good shape and which I i
l i
13 would be glad te vote for.
14 I assume you have all had at least a chance to scan it; 15 in a hurry, or, I see you are scanning it.
So that would also 16 be an appropriate verb form.
l l
i 17 Vic, you were pointing your finger at line 2 and hav- '
18 ing some discussion with Steve on this alternate language.
r i
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Page 39?
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This is back to the old bedded 22 salt issue.
t 23 (Laughter.)
23h!
2bh 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I was just pointing out that e 4.oerei aecorwn. inc.
25 when the Commission addressed the question of whether or not it
~ - - -
.._7..
pv4 l
5 1,
1 1
thought that wastes would be disposed of safely, they really 2
didn't -- or we didn't -- discuss any specific means, nor do I 3
think did we say it was even going to be a geologic waste dis-i 4
posal necessarily; simply said that we thought in due course --!
5 I don' t remember the exact words -- but the waste would be dis 6
posed of safely.
I see no need to go beyond that.
i 7
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You mean, just take out the 8
words " bedded salt"?
9 MR. EILPERIN:
I think one can certainly either take 10 out the nords " bedded salt" or, as Leo had suggested, include l
11 the words " bedded Esit, repository site, or equivalent,will be 12 found."
In other words, some alternate kind of medium.
j i
13 CHAIRMAN HENC2IE:
Yes.
As I overheard the tail-end !
l 14 ofthatconversation,towhichIwasnotpayingfullattention,l 15 I must admit, the point was that the rule we discussed for pur-:
i 16 poses of having a repository to evalute that one was selected 17 by the staff as a basis for its model.
And I think part of the 18 Commission's decision includes that choice, in the sense that 19 it's a reasonable basis on which t o assess impacts for these l
20 purposes.
21 The equivalent, then, seems to deal better with that 22 than taking out " bedded salt."
How does that strike people?
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I can go either way.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would also point out to ceJeeera# neconen, inc.
25 Steve that it also affects the bottom of page 39-A, where he 2391 287 I
7
e-4 s
6 i
I says:
"nor are we making judgments in this proceeding as to 2
the likelihood of geologic waste disposal being accomplished i
3 safely.
That issue has been addressed 1 / the Commission in a 4
separate generic proceeding. "
l t
S I think there the Commission only spoke about waste i
6 disposal, not necessarily, if I recall correctly, geological 7
waste disposal.
i Ihavenoproblemwith" geologic"beinh 8
MR. EILPERIN:
i 9
struck.
l l
I 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would need to strike the 11 last sentence before I would go with that.
I think " proceeding" 12 rather dignifies what that effort really was, and it certainly 13 isn't something that I feel that I would want to cite in sup-t I
14 port of a judgment that I was reaching or an assumotion that I I
15 was signing onto here.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You certainly would not have 17 to say " proceeding."
If that troubles you, you could always say i
18 "that issue has been separately addressed by the Commission 19 footnote," which happens to be a true statement.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It's a true statement, but i
21 phere you are asking -- or here I would be signing onto -- might 22 be signing onto a set of statements and then referencing one 23 part of that to a proceeding, the form of which at least I disa-24 gree with,
- .-pooers Reoorters. Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We could add that to the 2391 288 y
pvo 7
I footnote.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, it may cc:ne to that.
would prefer to drop the sentence.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seems to me that history, as it!
5 is germane, is not subject to being -- you know, if you want to 6
call it a separate matter that has been addressed separately by 7
the Commission and then reference the matter, why, that seems 8
okay to me.
If you want to add a personal note to it, why --
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What those two sentences taken l
together say is:
It is the Commission's judgment that waste f
10 II would be accomplished safely -- waste disposal will be 12 accomplished safely; that for full understanding of how we I
13 reached that conclusion, see the proceedings included in July I
of 1977.
Id i
15 That's a little more than just saying -- than just a 16 historical footnote.
That really directs the reader to July 17 1977, denial of the NRDC petition, al a Commission-endorsed way 18 of readhing that conclusion.
I9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I hadn't thought of it that way.
20 I had thought what we were saying is that the Commission 21 addressed that question ence before, and here's the place it did 22 it, for whatever that may be worth.
That's what I thought the 23 sentence said, and I didn't think it implied anything else 24 beyond that.
Was it supposed to?
co Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSICNER BRADFORD:
What it says to me is:
If you 2391 289
_ _ g g _._._.
8 I
want to cee what we said on that subject, i.e., waste disposal 2
being accomplished safely, here is what you ought to go read.
l 3
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
That's right.
It cer-l l
4 tainly does.
l l
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But if I were -- if I had 6
been here then and had agreed with that proceeding, that's what' 7
I would be saying, too.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I have often said that about j
l 9;
one of Caesar's proclamations, but I find however interesting 10 that may be, it's kind of irrelevant.
I II (Laughter.)
I 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't we see if we can settle ',
t 13 line 2 on page 39 and then deal with 39-A.
Okay?
14 I will vote for "or equivalent" in order to maintain i
I 15 the basis for the rule.
l 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would be happy with that i
17 line if you would insert that phrase twice:
once after "judg-i 18 ment" and once after " repository."
j 19 What I would.eally like to do is say " assumption" 1
20 instead of " judgment."
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would go with either deleting 22
" bedded salt" or with " bedded salt, repository, or its equiva-23 lent."
i 2d COMMISSIONEP KENNEDY:
How about " assumption" or
- sJoms6 Reporters, Inc.
25 "judement"?
~
2391 290
9 l
l 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No.
I think,at least as I i
2 understand, when we have reached the conclusion, we are reaching 3
a judgment.
j 4
CRAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's the way I read it, too.
t 5
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Does someone have a large dic-I 6
tionary here to see what the confluence between those two words,
7 might be?
It probably isn't all that great a difference, and I '
8 would be perfectly prepared to accept " assumption" unless the 9
lawyers tell me that that weakens it.
10 MR. EILPERIN :
I think that there's a difference.
A 11 judgment is you are reaching a conclusion based on reason.
It's, 12 your reasoned judgment.
13 An assumption contains much more flighty --
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If that's what we're alleging, l 15 I have other problems with this.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Vic?
i i
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don't know.
I have got other' 18 concerns here.
Let me understand this.
The judgment would be 19 that a zero release for all time repository will be found?
20 MR. EILPERIN:
The S-3 table contains the notation of 21 zero curies for waste disposal.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Forever?
23 MR. EILPERIN :
For as long as this table is intended 24 to remain in effect.
That's the number in the table as to
,ce federal Reootters, Inc.
25 what the Commission is saying is a realistic enrironmental l
2391 291 i
e i
10 I
appraisal.
i 2
It seems to me that, at minimum, a realistic environ '
mental appraisal means the Commission thinks it's more probable i 3
I 4
than not that this, in f act, will be the case.
If you find out' 5
information in a year or two years from now which leads you to l 6
a different judgment, you can and should change this table.
It l
7 doesn't mean that the table is --
i l
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I understand.
But the table I i
9 carries the environmental effect out for how many years?
For
.I 10 all time?
Il MR. SLAGGIE:
The table assumes, once the repository l l
f 12 is sealed there will be no further release of radioactive 13 materials for the whole period during which that is toxic.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Not quite all time.
15 MR. SLAGGIE:
If I say "significantly toxic," that l
10 means then that you don't have to go out until the exponential 17 goes to zero.
l 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's a pretty potent judg-19 ment.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Especially for a record in 21 which -- while this was an issue, it scarcely was an issue which 22 attracted all parties who will be addressing it at other times, 23 l and also, as I keep saying like a broken record, in which the 1
24 l assumptions of the parties weren't subject to cross-examination.
co-secere neconm. sec. '
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
Well, that's a matter of --
[
2391 292
{
11 i
certainly, that's your opinion, Peter.
It's my view that there -
2 was ample exercising of the parties' questions through the Board;.
i 3
And we, after all, gave that Board -- assigned it the discretion' tomakethejudgmentwhetheranyparticularissueneededcross-l 4
i 5
examination.
And I think I have no reason to doubt that they 6
did it responsibly and properly.
l 7
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I also think that they did it 8
-- I won't say irresponsibly -- but certainly, improperly.
i 9
But since the delegation was made nonreviewable, there 10 isn't a lot of point in pursuing it.
As a matter of the art of 11 ruling on cross-examination, it does also affect my judgment ofi l
12 how much use the record is for the purpose of reaching sweepingj l
13 conclusions on this.
l 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Peter, I guess what you're i
15 saying is that you really don't believe that we can go forward l
16 with the Order.
l 17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would be -- this is the first 18 I have looked at this, but on the basis of the reading I have 19 given it so far, we ought to do it on one of two bases:
If 20 l three members of the Commission aren't intent, then I will put 21 in whatever further note I have to.
22 If it were me, I would say " assumption," and if the 23 lawyers then told me that for NEPA purposes " assumption" wasn' t 24 good enough, that you really had to have some fairly high level
.4.e <c neoomri, inc.
25 of confidence that this described the future, then perhaps I I
2391 293 I,
e -
12 I
couldn't go ahead with the Order.
2 But if " assumption" is good enough, then I would go 3
ahead on that basis.
In effect, what I would be saying is:
4 Among the likely scenarios based on this recor', I am prepared ;
5 to assume and think it is a not-unreasonable assumption that i
6 this is what the future will look like.
l 7
" Judgment" is just a more -- Steve is quite right; it 8
is a firmer word.
It implies a higher degree of confidence in 9
a lower likelihood that there is more to be heard on the sub-i 10 ject.
l t
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Are you saying you would not l
12 be troubled if it said "for these reasons and based on this 13 record, the Commission believes that it can reasonably assume I
14 that
..."?
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think I could accept that.
16 MR. SLAGGIE:
Either that means the same as " judgment" 17 or it means something that I believe falls short of the finding 18 you have to make in order to adopt this rule.
If it means the 19 same as " judgment," I think you should use the word " judgment."
20 (Laughter.)
21 MR. EILPERIN:
Truly, I think that both NEPA, which 22 allows one to make predictions, and the nature of the world and 23 the timespan involved which also force one to make predictions,'
24 allow the Commission and require the Commission to make pre-m Federal Aeoorters, Inc.
25 dictions.
If, by " reasonable assumption" all you mean to imply 2391 294
pvil 13 1
is that by the nature of the animal we are being forced to make 2
some sort of prediction, I have no problem with that.
I call 3
that a judgment.
4 In either case you are -- you are forced to make a 5
prediction.
But it should be a prediction based upon come f
i 6
reasoned basis.
And the concept of a prediction based on a l
7 reasoned basis, to my mind, the word " judgment" fits better with' 8
that.
If it's your understanding that " reasonable assumption" 9
carries for you the same kind of impressions and vibrations, l
10 that's fine, I think.
I think it just has to be a prediction 11 based on reason.
i 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Leo, are you really saying 13 that NEPA compels us to believe that the impacts that we set i
14 forth here are the impacts that will occur, or it's our best 15 judgment that this is what is reasonably likely?
f i
16 MR SLAGGIE:
Well, consider the converse :
What if 17 you believe it's reasonably likely that there will be significant 18 releases from a waste repository?
In that case, you certainly 19 could not uphold this rule.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The difficulty at the roment, 21 which I think we're going to get to in a moment, is that we 22 certainly believe there will be insignificant releases.
This 23 zero-release busines s is difficult for us to reason.
24 But even if -- even if you didn't have that problem,
- e Federal Repo,ters, Inc.
25 it's not a matter of whether I believe the converse; it's just 2391 295
pvu l
14 a matter of how uncertain I am about -- I mean, I am willing to j
i 2
say that among the possibilities this one is probably more likely 3
than any other one than I can put my finger on and sketch through.
I I
e:..d # 18 But that is less than being able to say that this will happen.
4 5
6 i
7 8
I 2391 296 9
10 1
i 11 12 l
i is 14 15
[
l 16 i
I 17 i
18 19 20 21 22 23 2a
,ce Federst Recorters, Inc.
25 l
CR4618
.eltz,er t19 i
jl-1 15 1
MR. SLAGGIE:
1 think it's enough to say this 2
possibility is more likely than any other you could put your 3
finger on.
4 (Laughter. )
5 MR. SLAGGIE:
That is more likely than not, in the 6
sense that really there are two possibilities :
There will be 7
significant releases or there won't be significant releases.
I 8
If you feel its 51-49 in favor of no significant 9
releases, I would say that's enough to support this rule, 10 though it may very well not be enough to support other j
11 determinations you might encounter regarding waste disposal 12 elsewhere in your activity.
t 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Suppose if you left the word 14
" judgment" in and changed "will" to "may," will that do it?
15 MR. EILPERIN :
I think that wouldn't do it for me.
16 "May" does not sou.nd determinant.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
Gentlemen, I really think it's the i8 Commission's judgment that is involved here, anc I think that's 10 what it is.
And the word ought to be used.
20 If you want to say a suitable repository site would i
21 be found, or I would vote for a suitable bedded salt, since 22 that 's what 's in the rule ; and the rule is what you' re dealing 23 with.
Repository or equivalent will be found.
I think that's 24 the way it ought to read.
- e.Feceral Reporters, Inc..
I 25 And I wonder if I can gather un enouch. votes to make j
t 2391 297 l
jl 2 16 l
1 it stick?
I 2
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Fine with me.
l 4
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You didn't like my 4
alternative, which I thought Peter was buying, until we had S
a ~~
6 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE :
I think Leo is right, it's either 7
equivalent to the Commission's judgment, in which case you 8
ought to say that, which would be a good deal more clear; or 9
it's not, in which case you ought not to go forward with the 10 rule.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, there's sometimes not l
12 a time here when clarity doesn't always werve all purposes 13 equally well.
14 (Laughter. )
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I thought that was the 16 essence of rulemaking.
17 (Laugheter. )
18 MR. EILPERIN:
You are supposed to articulate your lo reasons in the statement of consideration, so I think the 20 clearer one can be, the better off one is.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Peter, would you accept 22 Dick's phrase?
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You want to let me have it 24 l once more, Dick?
m-F.cwm Aeoonm. inc.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's so long ago I can hardly I
i 2391 298
jl 3 17 1
recall it.
2 (Laughter.)
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
For these reasons, and based 4
on this record, the Commission believes that it can reasonably l
5 assume that a suitable bedded salt repository or equivalent 6
site will be found.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would accept that, assuming 8
that the rest of this then follows, as it does; and I would 9
then have to write my own note on the last sentence.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Oh, I was thinking perhaps 11 you would get away with the last -- that we could --
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You were going to hitch me 13 on --
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Make a little trade.
15 (Laughter. )
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But the trade was that I was 17 driving all my other objections to the first sentence.
You 18 are asking for a player to be named later.
10 (Laughter.)
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, anyway, as to the last 21 sentence, it seems to me that is your view and not an unreason-22 able one in light of the fact that, as I was Caesar, you 23 weren't here, you know, and it would not be seen untoward -- I 24 should note that had I been, gosh,. I suppose I wouldn't have
=Jeeerai aeoort rs. inc.
25 said that, but of course I wasn't.
2391 299
jl 4,
t 9
18 l
1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, Joe, I agree with you.
i 2
There comes a point at which -- I'm not sure whether what 3
you're proposing is fishing or cutting bait, but one of them.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, I think we have to decide on 5
-- you know, we can choose one version or another version, or 6
just chuck the whole thing and go heme.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We can do that.
That's anothe 8
option.
Throw out the whole page 39.
I'd be prepared to do 9
that.
10 (Laughte r. )
i 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Dick, are you willing to go 12 with your -- the phrase that you just read?
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I actually have no preference.,
t 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Joe, are you willing to go 15 with the judgment that a suitable repository equivalent will 16 be found?
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Judgment and/or equivalent.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
Are you willing to go on that?
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Sure.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm willing to go on that.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But how many of you are 22 willing to go with Dick's version?
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I am.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would also go with Dick's
- s Federal Reconm, Inc.
25 phrase.
I'm trying to get us off this page.
2391 300
ji 5~
~ ~ ~ ~
~~
~
~
~~
~
~~
1?
1 (Laughter.)
2 COMMISSIONER KENNED 7:
My suggestion was let's scrap 3
the page.
i 4
COMMT.SSIONER BRADFORD:
We've just given you two 5
groups of three.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I suggested we could accom-7 plish this.
We've got three and three now.
The solution would l
8 be to scrap the page in its entirety.
9 Can we do that, Leo?
10 MR. SLAGGIE:
I'm sorry?
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Scrap the page in its entirety?,
t 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Vic, would you go with either?
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
(Inaudible.)
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
Joe, why don't you go with 15 judgment that a-suitable. repository?
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
For these reasons, and based on 17 this record, it is the Commission's judgment that a suitable 18 bedded salt repository site or equivalent will be found, but --
10 and so on and so on.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Fine.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
In that case, I need two 22 dissenting footnotes instead of one.
23 ;
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I recommend that since there is i
i!
24 l a footnote 24 which attaches -- it's all one sentence -- you co faceral Reporters, Inc.
25 i can just do an additional paragraph on that footnote?
2391 301
jl 6 20 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
2 I will now look at this, and just do whatever I need 3
to do with it.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
On 39 (a), we agreed to strike i
5
" geologic" down there, about five lines from the end.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That was in order to get 7
Victor's vote for the rest of it, right?
i 8
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No, that was just to make it l 9
right.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I was just trying to figure 11 out why we did it.
l 12 (Laughter. )
~
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would think you would want 14 to.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I agree with you.
I think it 16 should be striken, too.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
Just to conform with what 18 was said earlier.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's right.
20 COMMMISSIONER GILLINSKY:
No other reason.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Oh, it wasn't to get your 22 vote?
23 (Laughter.)
24 GHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
Let's see.
I think we had agreed
- e.-ederet Reporters, Inc.
25 -
that there was merit in Peter's view that the July '77 matter 1
i i
2391 302 d
ji 7 i
21 i
1 was -- that referred to it as a separate generic proceeding.
2 It certainly wasn' t a rulemaking.
It was dealing with a 3
petition.
Why don't we refer to it in a separate matrer?
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Just say that issue has been 5
addressed separately by the Commission period.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Was the issue addresed, or 7
was it just that the Commission's position in that matter has 8
been stated?
l 9
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
No, I think it came pretty squarely 10 to the question about waste disposal, because you had a peti-11 tien before you saying you can't -- claiming that there was i
12 no -- you know, you had no way of knowing whether waste was 13 going to be disposed of safely, and on that basis you couldn't 14 license plants to make waste.
15 And the Commission denied that petition, and said, 16 what is it, we have reasonable confidence -- or whatever the 17 language was.
Why don't we just say that issue has been 18 addressed separately?
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And thus we didn't have to 20 come to that question.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, no, we more or less 22 volunteered that after denying the petition on the grounds 23 that the Atomic Energy Act didn't require us to make the 24 finding that was being asked.of us.
- e-Federal Reporters, Inc. I 25 We went on to say --
391 303 I
ih 8f
~
22 1
MR. EILPERIN:
It was more then making things 2
voluntarily.
You said it was your policy that you wouldn't 3
license reactors unless you have that confidence, and you asked 4
the Staff to examine whether or not there was that confidence.
S COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I phrased it badly, but what ;
6 I meant was that we said we weren't strictly required by law 7
to make that kind of a judgment as a policy matter --
j 8
MR. EILPERIN :
That's what you said.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: -- and decided to view it in 10 the way described.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In that light, the issue 12 was separately addressed, wasn't it?
It was addressed -- the I
13 issue was addressed; right?
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think so.
That issue has been 15 addressed separately by the Commission, footnote 25.
16 Now, Peter --
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would just have to add to 18 that that the conclusion of that proceeding doesn' t represent l'
my own basis for the licensing.
I would add that to your 20 footnote.
21 CHAIR'!AN HENDRIE :
Yes, to the 25.
22 I think, in fact, you have some language which has 23 previously been summarized.
24 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Yes, recycling and so on.
- 4.cerei meoonen, inc. ;
25 !
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Page 40.
i l
2391 304
ji 9 e
i 23 i
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don't know where this goes.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Does 39 (a) now -- oh, okay, 3
it runs right into 40.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Where do these things hook 5
together?
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
It hooks right up on the top.
7 Page 40 just goes right on.
8 MR. EILPERIN :
That's right.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Oh, I see.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So the new 39 and 39 (a) come in 11 effect, except for that beginning phrase at the bottom of 39 (a),
12 come before page 40 and in replacement of the other page 39.
l 13 Next question is then the phrase at the bottom of 14 page 40.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would not we have two foot-16 notes 25 if that matters.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why is that?
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Because footnote 25 previously 10 followed -- it's the same footnote.
20 MR. SLAGGIE :
No, 26 -- what is now footnote 25 on 21 page 40 could be footnote 26.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's the same footnote.
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It 's the same footnote that 24 i you've already got on 39 (a).
- e-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. SLAGGIE:
That's the one we refer to on 39 (a).
n u
2391 305
jl.10 24 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
So you just want to drop it 2
here, don't you?
3 MR. EILPERIN :
I think what Leo is suggesting -- that 4
footnote 26 would be just "See Note 25."
5 COMMISSIONER KENh;JY:
Ah -- okay.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
I'm sorry -- say that again.
7 MR. SLAGGIE:
What we now have, af ter, elsewhere as 8
a major policy matter, 25, we now have on page 40, about i
9 nuclear power, which the Commission has addressed elsewhere as 10 a major policy matter.
Then it says footnote 25.
That will 11 now be footnote 26, and footnote 26 will say, "See Note 25, i
12 ab ove. "
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
Let's see -- the issue addressec 14 separately by the Commission is indeed footnote 25.
It reads, 15 "42 'ed. Reg 34,391," et cet; okay?
16 Now let us turn to page 40 -- I see -- okay, I've 17 got you.
Finally figured it out -- 26, "See 25.'
I understand 18
-- okay.
10 MR. SLAGGIE:
All subsequent footnotes will have to 20 be renumbered.
You'll have to rely on us to get the numbers 21 right.
22 (Laughter. )
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What a burden you have chosen 24 to assess on us.
co-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSICNER BRADFORD:
Let me just point out what 2391 306
ji 11 25 1
has happened here, this legal highwire act that the Wallenda 2
f amily might have shrunk from -- originally, that July '77 0,
decisien was made to deny a request for rulemaking put in by 4
the NRDC.
There were no hearings, no proceeding of any sort, i
5 as a basis for it.
6 Now, that's being cited, in part, as a basis for 7
the S-3 table, the numbers from which will be used in all 8
adjudicatory proceedings, not even rulemaking proceedings now, 9
but in all adjudicatory proceedings on reactor licensing, which 10 had that proposition been introduced into any one of those 11 proceedings -- cross-examination, under oath, the whole 12 panoply of legal proceedings would have attached to it.
13 Instead, this thing is going to be picked up, flung 14 twice through the air, and dropped into the middle df adjudica-15 tory proceedings without ever in the first proceeding having 16 been subject to any serious scrutiny at all.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEE'l-But Steve has the parachute.
18 MR. EILPERIN :
I respectfully dissent both from your 10 legal analysis and both from your judgments about what's 20 intended here.
21 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I'm not saying it's illegal, 22 S teve,
but it's clearly what happened to that July '77 23 petition.
24 MR. EILPERIN :
It simply refers to that petition as
- e-Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 i
-he point where the Commission dealt with the question of u391 307 7
i
. ~. ~
jl 12 26 i
i safety, and it says the Commission is not dealing with the l
2 Commission of Safety here.
That is what it is supposed to say,!
3 and I think what it does say.
4 The idea about cross-examination, adj udicatory I
l 5
proceedings -- that there is no doubt in mind that in all the 6
cases, including Vermont Yankee, it is quite reasonable for 7
a commission to decide a generic issue in a generic rulemaking 8
proceding which does not have the full panoply of adjudicatory 9
procedures.
10 The Commission has the discretion to do otherwise, 11 but certainly it is a legitimate way of deciding generic 12 issues.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is the legal thing to do.
14 I am not sure, in this case, it's a reasonable thing.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
How central to the argument, Leo, 16 or Steve, is the sentence which runs uncertainty about waste 17 disposal?
18 MR. EILPERIN :
What page are we on now?
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
40.
20 It seems to me that, in effect, it revisits a subject 21 which has now been dealt with, I think, in a better way in 22 Steve's new draft on 39 (a).
And I wonder whether, in a sense, 23 it's almosr redundant?
I 24 l MR. EILPERIN :
I have no problem with that,being co-Fecefal Rooorters, Inc.
25 eliminiated in its entirety -- that sentence.
]
2391 308 ll
31 13.
2y 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You know, the way it would seem 2
reasonable for me to read -- you note that there has been 3
this denial of the petition previously.
Say, in view of the a
uncertainties noted regarding waste disposal, the question that,
5 arises -- whether these uncertainties can or should be reflect-6 ed exclusively in the rule?
7 The Commission has concluded the rule should not be a
so modified.
On the individual reactor licensing level, we 9
are proceeding to deal with fuel issues, cycle issues, only 10 peripherally.
The Commission sees no advantage in having the 11 Boards repeatedly weigh -- so it seems to me it flows perhaps 12 more cleanly, in view of ihe preceeding language, which we have' 13 now put in place to jus ditch that sentence.
14 And since it - - I don't know whether that's a modest 15 help, Peter.
It at least removes a restatement of something 16 you --
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It's a substantial help to the 18 General Counsel.
They don't have to renumber the footnotes.
10 (Laughter.)
20 CHAIRMAN HE1 DRIE:
Yes, we now don't have to have 21 26, which says, "See 25."
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And it releaves that awful i
23 burden placed on us about having to worry about them doing it.
24 MR. EILPERIN :
It's difficult enough for the
- e-Federal Reoorters, Inc.
25 Commission to worry about the numbers to put into the S-3 table 239l 309
jl 14 28 I
without having to worry about the General Counsel putting the 2
numbers in for the footnotes.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It might get mixed up.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
On to the bottom of page 40, i
i 1
5 please.
I i
6l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Have we decided on that?
I'm 7
not altogether sure of that.
t 8
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I will go along.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I may well have to stop and 10 think about it a little bit; and, indeed, I propose to do just 11 that.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
About what?
13 COMMISSIOENR KENNEDY:
About the sentence that 14 everybody was just deleting.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I thought they already 16 deleted it.
17 (Laughter. )
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They may have.
They didn't l'
ask me, and I am just telling you my view, which I'm going to 20 wait a little whilte before I propose to.
21 COMMISSIONER BRALFORD :
If it will help any, I wasn't 22 even urging the deletion.
23 CCMMISSIONER KEmiEDY:
That's right.
24 COMMISSIONER AZEARNE!
It's fine to delete as far as
- s Jeaere Reoorters,Inc.;
25 :
I'm concerned.
l 2391 310
j1 15' 29 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'll vote to delete.
2 Can I get another vote to delete?
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Am I still allowed to vote 4
on this?
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
Of course.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'll vote to delete.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
Three, deleted.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I may put a footnote in.
It's, 9
going to upset you again, fellows.
I'm sorry about that.
10 (Laughter.)
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, bottom of the page.
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I can hardly urge that change 13 on the Commission, given the early position agreed to.
This is 14 a le'sser item in the same category.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And I think it states the matter 16 consistently, as we have discussed it here, and so we will 17 leave in the phrase which the Commission believes the 18 probabilities favor; page 41 -- there has been a motion to 10 strike footnote 26.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or 27, as the case may be.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, 26 is another -- is a 22 further step in the same direction I've been having trouble 23 with all along.
24 j The difficult lines for me are the four that start
- e-Federat Aeoorters, Inc. l 25 with the ma j or e f f ort.
I find myself on the other side of the l
2391 311
jl 16 30 1
point Leo has been making before.
This is a proceeding devoted 2
primarily, I think, to salt.
And yet now, somehow, the con-3 clusion is being --
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I thought this was S-3.
SALT l 5
is being handled elsewhere in the government, hopefully, or i
6 otherwise it would never get concluded at all.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Whether one is talking about i
8 arms or waste displacement is probably being handled elsewhere i
9 in the government, but my concern is to reach this conclusion 10 about all other media is an even longer stride away from what 11 this proceeding would leave me comfortable with than it would end t19 12 1 have been for salt alone.
13 2391 312 t
15 16 17 18 10 20 21 22 t
1 23 '
24 l
- ..F aai Aecon n. inc. {
25 l
R 4618 920 IMI/pv i
31 1
MR. SLAGGIE:
In an absolutely irrevocable decision, 2
you have already put in the words " bedded salt or its equiva-3 lent," and this footnote tends to amplify that.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think that point is a valid 5
one. To those who were helpful in the earlier change,
this one 6
is not a major one.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
I must say that I found it I
I e
useful and pertinent and would vote to leave it in.
9 COMMISSIONER.'.HEARNE:
So would I.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I can only say the current 11 rate of growth of knowledge does not necessarily buttress the i
i 12 firmness with which one can reach conclusions.
13 MR. SLAGGIE:
The main conclusion is --
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That might be valid if you were a 15 licensee or repository here today.
But you're not.
16 All you're saying is --
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's my line.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All you're saying here is that we 19 are making a reasonable cut in environmental effects, and for 20 that purpose we need to project out into the future and see 21 ' what likely outcomes there are and so on.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If I could get you to write 25 that sentence in here, I would have had no problem with any of 24 the pages we've gone through so far.
c.J o.<ei n.comn. ine.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think we have written it again 2391 313 a
~-
t 32 I
i 1
and again.
39-A:
' It is in no way intende d to be a judgment" 2
and so on,"for choosing among alternative technologies, subject 3
to further review in the Commission licensing proceeding when 4
a particular proposal comes to it."
I don't know how much more,
5 explicitly you can deal with it.
f 6
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't disagree that there 7
are some good sentences in here, Joe.
It's just that there are!
8 some bad ones as well.
I 9
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see if we can achieve some i
10 sort of a --
j 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDi:
I find myself in the difficult 12 position of having used the same quotation of speech.
There-13 fore, I can hardly object to it.
i 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That seems an adequate basis to 15 vote for it.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have used lots of things in 17 speeches I would never want to say in a Commission decision.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I try to keep reasonably con-19 sistent.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's not reflect on that either 21 way.
22 (Laughter.)
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have got three votes for the 24 footnote.
w.eer : meoon.n. inc.
25 -
Page 42.
Okay, now, let's see.
I am reading the copy I
i l
2391 314
pv3 33 i
1 you marked up, Peter, is the one I am working from.
Page 42.
2 COMMISSIONER BRACFORD:
Do you want me to talk a 3
minute te what I saw --
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I guess so.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The net effect of those changes was that I was saying that I could accept the zero release more.j 6
7 or less on what I took to be the second of two reasons of the i
8 decision offered, which was that it was -- it is certainly not l 9
a conservative assumption, in itself, but it's nonconservatism.
1 10 is offset by the assumptions made about the total release of j
11 other products before the waste is in place.
l 12 The parts I crossed out were the parts thau seemed toI i
13 be saying we really do have good reason to believe there will t
I, 14 be zero release.
That seemed to me to be more than I was com-i 15 fortable with.
j 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If you look to where you have 17
" virtually impossible" and " sites" -- do you see that in the i
18 middle there?
t 19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If you would change "and" to 21 "since," I would accept your changes.
Then I accept the rest 22 of it.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Read it, John.
24 lj COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It would say:
" Releases
- . F.emi peconen, inc. 4 25 l through accidental intrusion by man remain possible, but casual 2391 315 j
1 34 1
intrusions would be virtually impossible" -- "since" I slipped 2
in there.
3 00MMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You can only say they would 4
be " virtually impossible" if you can conclude that they will i
5 be put there, not simply that they should be.
i 6
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD.
I would change the " casual 7
intrusions" to "should," I thinP as well, to match those two 8
sentences up.
l 9
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Wait.
Hang on.
I have just lost 10 you.
i 11 COMMISSIONER AhEARNE:
Yes, I would have no problem.
12 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Somebody who understands that go 13 back and read it from " releases."
Okay?
l l
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
" Releases through accidental 15 intrusion by man remain possible, but casual intrusions should l
16 be virtually impossible, since sites should be selected in areas 17 offering little incentive for deliberate intrusion in search of, 18 natural resources."
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It's all one sentence.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
"Since sites should be 22 selected"?
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
That's what he had.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would change the other "will" co-Federal Reoorters, Inc.
25 to "should."
g e
pv5 35 i
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That changes the sense of it; right?
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Not the sense, but certainly 3
the certainty.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, it changes the sense.
It says 1
5
-- look, it went originally along the following line:
Itsaid,!
6
" Releases through accidental intrusion by man remain possible,"
5 7
bu t there are two cases :
Case one, you just happen to be dig-8 ging away for the fun of digging and you ran into it.
- Well, 9
the thing is going to be down many hundreds of feet, and so 10 casual intrusion is virtually impossible; that is, you just l
11 aren't going to be for the fun of it be digging away at a l
12 thousand feet down.
s.
- 2 13 Okay, case two:
You are not just casually digging backup l
14 away for the fun of doing a little spadework; you are looking j
i 15 for natural resources.
Well, we think that's unlikely because 16 you would try to select sites such that they weren't sitting 17 right over or under or right next to, you know, a gold seam or 18 natural resources into which people would be likely to prospect.
19 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:
You're right.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So, in a sense, by coupling them, 21 it makes hash out of the logic.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You're right.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And I think I would be against 24 "since."
co.Feceres Reoorters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You are right.
Okay.
l 2391 317
pve 36 l
i i
i 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And I think i
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would put back in "Com-i 3
mission's view unlikely."
The next two phrases sb41f being I
4 the explanation for why one drew that conclusion.
l 5
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
If you wanted "since," it i
6 goes after "unlikely."
"Unlikely since casual intrusions will j i
7 be virtually impossible" -- or "should be," I don't care -- and !
" sites will be or should be selected in areas offering little" i
8 9
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think there you have to say i
10 "will."
i l
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Why?
{
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Because you are putting forward 13 an injunction which, if not met, will make the sentence untrue.,
l 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If we say here " sites will be j 15 selected," are we now saying the Commission has said where cheyl 16 will be?
4 17 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think, as a matter of fact, that 18 the proposition that sites ought not to be, you know, coexist 19 with valuable natural resource, has been one of the, you know, 4
20 sort of ground rule criteria for that standpoint and,. I guess, 21 from everybody else's.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
One of the arguments about WIPP was that it was close to potash plants.
23 l 24 CEAIRMAN EENDRIE:
I can't tell you.
All I know is
- n Federet Reporters, Inc. !
25 that it seems to me that that has been around --
2391 318
. __. p y,
I 37 l
1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Steve, can you help us in that 2
sentence?
3 MR. EILPERIN:
I think the most recent suggestion is 4
fine.
I really have no strong preference.
And I think that if S
the Commission -- I mean, there is logic to saying it, "in the 6
Commission's view, unlikely, since casual intrusions will be 7
virtually impossible and sites will be selected in areas offer-l ing little incentive," and going on with the original testimony.!
8 9
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If we put in the "should,"
10 does that cause you any concern?
t 11 MR. EILPERIN :
It doesn't cduse me any concern.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would put "should."
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If I could get three votes --
f 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Will you try one "should" and 15 one "will"?
t i
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think I would rather vote 17 "should."
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That changes the meaning.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It certainly changes the cer-20 tainty, but I don't know how I can say that will happen.
I can 21 say it's most likely.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You can't.
That's what Peter 23 has been saying all this time.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Where they will be sited?
I
- eJacersi Reporters, Inc.
25 can't say that's where they will be sited.
2391 319
.i
pv8 38 f
i 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
John, I owe you a vote.
I am going 2
to go with two "shoulds," not because I believe you are right 3
necessarily. -
4 (Laughter.)
f i
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me try it one more time.
6
" Releases through accidental intrusion by man remain I
I 7
possible, but in the Commission's view unlikely, since casual l
i i
8 intrusions should be virtually impossible and sites should be 9
selected in areas offering little incentive for deliberate 10 intrusion in search of natural resources."
l l
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All right.
i 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have got that on.
Can I get any 13 more encouragement?
j l
14 COMMISSIONER BRADPORD:
I could barely cling to i
15 that if I knew the rest of the page were going to stay the way l
16 I would have it.
I 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would vote for the rest of 1
18 the page the way you have it.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
You would agree to removal 20 of the --
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see.
Why are you tak-22 ing out the rest of that page?
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, if I take out the rest of 24 the page -- by taking out the rest of the page, that means
- e-Federst Aeoorters, Inc.
25 taking out the part --
2391 320 l
pv9 39 l
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That stricken sentence, yes, i
2 What is your reasoning there?
l 3
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You mean beyond the fact that 4
Peter proposed it?
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
j 6
(Laugh *er.)
t 7
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I assume Peter had very good l
8 reasons for proposing 10.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It seems highly redundant.
I i
10 think it ought to go.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It seemed when I read through l 12 it that taking it out improved it.
Leaving it in was a little i
13 bit weaker.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There are also three words in 15 the next sentence.
i 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I saw all those words.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The next sentence is a differ-18 ent question.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It may not be, if we get a coupled I
20 system.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the attitude about 22 zero releases?
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's the question.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It says that taking them at ceJeceral Rewrters, ene, 25 zero does not significantly reduce the conservatism of the table.
0-
~...
40 l
l 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is it reasonable or isn't it?
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It does not significantly 3
reduce the overall conservatism of the table.
l 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It must be reasonable, j
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is reasonable in that sense.
l 6
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It appears to me that what is 7
important is that if it's going to reduce the overall conserva-8 tism --
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Whatyou'resayir7isifit'sl 10 not there it's some small number.
l 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
I 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why not say that?
I 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Insignificantly small number.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think what we have said is 15 the accurate way of saying it, the way Peter has marked it:
i 16 Taking them as zero does not significantly reduce the conserva, t
17 tism of the table.
So, for calculational purposes, that is 18 really the simplest approach, and it does not signifcantly 19 reduce the conservatism of the table, which sounded very appro-20 priate.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
De es doing that with " reasonable" 22 damage your --
22 MR. SLAGGIE:
I think we can accept it.
24 MR. EILPERIN:
I think it's fine.
- Jeeerst Reportsrs, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, I would propose,then, that 2391 322
41 I
going back to releases, up in the middle as I read it, delete 2
the sentence starting "Overall" then.
And delete "as reasona-3 ble" and down in the third-last line of that long paragraph on j
4 that page.
l l
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Fine with me.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I will vote for it.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Peteri 8
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Done.
10 43.
Okay, on the reprocessing --
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think that is a splendid 12 sentence.
i 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In considering this alternative, l
14 the Commission expresses no view on the likelihood that such 15 reprocessing will take place."
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is as close to a truism as i
17 I have ever read.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have no objection to that.
19 COMMISSIONER AHrm:
Look good?
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think that's right.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I even like the footnote.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Oh, yes.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I assume, Peter, you are for 24 the footnote?
=>.oerei Aeoortm, inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
2391 323
.pv12 42 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So Dick 1.nd I are.
2 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I will join you.
That settles page 3
43, with uhe insert.
Right?
4 Now, in spite of my previous efforts, Leo, to relieve 5
you of the footnote numbering problem, you are now back in the l
6 soup.
I 7
MR. SLAGGIE:
If I may quote your predecessor, I can l
8 say " Trust us."
i i
9 (Laughter.)
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, to the first.
You asked 11 two questions.
l I
12 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You were an employee of a predeces '
i 13 sor agency.
Tell him.
,I 14 (Laughter.)
15 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, page 44.
Peter, you would 16 say "an unacceptably high level of radioactive effluant releases. "
17 I am not sure that that is the case.
They were high.
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We said on the next page we 19 wouldn't license it again.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
But in its time and place, 21 I am really not sure what the record shows with regard to viola-22 tions of the technical specifications.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think at least what I could 24 dig through indicated that they weren't in violation.
- e.Federst Reporters. Inc.
25 :
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why don ' t you mak e it "a high s
_. 2.391 324
pv14 43 l
l 1
level"?
~
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It says "a relatively high level" 3
or "a high level."
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would have no problem with 5
"high level."
i 6
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I' ras actually drawing upon i.
7 a document of yours, Joe, that I thought was substantially :-
l 8
abused in the context in which I read it.
But it was one in i
9 which you recommend getting a team up.to West Valley because of; 10 running such a dubious operation.
i 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
And as I scanned -- at least' 12 when they went up there, why, they didn't find any release 13 violation.
They found other things they didn't like.
i 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What they had was some unac-15 ceptably low limits.
16 MR. EILPERIN:
The sense of Commissioner Bradford's t
17 change, to my mind, was to say that it is not reasonable to use' 18 the NFS values for predicting what would be the results of 19 reprocessing in the future because the Commission now finds that 20 those values would be unacceptable, and there are better ways o' 21 limiting releases.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is what I meant.
But I 23 have to concede that others might --
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The way I read it was --
c=4.ousi necon n. inc.,
25 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It sounded like it was a violation 2391 325_
p..,
44 I
type of thing.
And if there is -- now, anywhere in here do we 2
get the thought that Steve has expressed?
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think in another page or two, I
4 the bottom of page
-- no, sorry, the bottom of page 49.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes. "It is clear from the general 6
dissatisfaction that further commercial reprocessing ventures i
will not be licensed or attempted, depending on how we come out,i 7
8 unless we or their proponents have sound reason to expect much 9
better performance."
10 I wonder if that doesn't deal with it.
And in that 11 case, I would leave it either "a high level" or "a relatively l
i 12 high level," as originally, just because the " unacceptably" may' i
13 carry that.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
I am not pressing it.
l 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Why not take the aantence out 16 of there altogether?
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it's a pertinent considera-i 18 tion in the argument.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
An. essential piece of the argument, 21 because people are saying you ought to use NSF as a model.
22 We're saying, " Boy, they were high, and that was the one that 23 did operate."
And --
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's the point you just Ace-Federat Reporters, tric.
25 referred to that comes later and is made well.
That point 2391 326
pvl5 t
45 1
isn't made here, unless you do it as Peter did it.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, it says "a relatively high 3
level," then discusses the matter in some length, then gets on 4
and points out that NSF is not regarded as the model, an 5
appropriate model, because you wouldn't do NSF and allow it to f
l 6
operate that way.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would prefer to strike " rela-8 tively."
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Strike "relatively"?
Okay.
Can we, 10 get another?
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
"A high level of radioactive."
13 48.
I 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Looks fine to me.
That is, i
i 15 the changes recommended.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
Strike " Sierra Club."
i 17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Why would we strike " Sierra 18 Club"?
I guess it doesn't matter.
It says in the preceding 19 paragraph, if that's what we're talking about --
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I just didn't feel any impulse 21 to get into a direct argument.
22 COMMITSIONER KENNEDY:
I think we are, anyway, so it 23 doesn't matter, because the preceding --
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Just a matter of tone.
m Foceraf Reporun, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
All right, end#20 2391 327
a *ois *.
MIMI/pv 46 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And I think " definitive" is fine i
2 me.
" Finds the staff and the board were reasonable."
We don't 3
ask for extraordinary standards.
Okay.
So those changes seem 4
all right.
l 5
Page 49.
l 6
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The first one I don't feel 7
strongly about.
It was just something that jumped out at me, 8
and I knocked it off in passing.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let'ss see.
I 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
They did criticize it, though; 11 didn't they?
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I am sure it's accurate.
I 13 just didn't think it added to it.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Ofwhatrelevancewasthecom-!
15 ment?
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't much care.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I had a question, though, on 18 what the sentence said.
It says - 'did the board note the 19 mistrust factor?
Where you say that the " board noted and criti-20 cized"?
Was it the mistrust factor that they noted and criti-21 cized?
22 MR. SLAGGIE:
The board criticized many conservatisms 23 and overestimates of releases.
24 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No.
My only point is that the' ee 5.oere Aeoorms, inc. !
25 l way the sentence runs is that this mistrust factor is included 2391 328
47 I
as "noted and criticized."
2 MR. SLAGGIE:
"A reasonable allowance for this mis-3 trust factor is included within the staff's many conservatisms.";
i 4
MR. EILPERIN:
Why doesn't the Commission just read j
5 in and sometimes criticize --
i 6
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I don't think the board noted i
7 the mistrust factor.
I am just commenting.
I don't care.
But' 8
I think the way the sentence is constructed, the " noting and l
9 criticizes goes to the mistrust factor.
l 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's what it sounds like.
l l
II COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's just a comment. I l
12 really don't care.
i 13 MR. EILPERIN :
Well, we can, if the Commission wishes)
I 14 it can just deleted "noted and sometimes criticized by the
,I t
15 hearing board. "
And then put a period after " releases."
And l i
16 I think that would do it.
I 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
But the board did note 18 several places that it felt the staff was being excessively 19 conservative.
Now, I don't know that the phrase " mistrust fac '
20 tor" ever showed up in the Board's thing.
And it somehow reads 21 as though you could go and read the board decision and find then 22 discussing a mistrust factor and so on.
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why not just drop the word 24
" mistrust" and take the quotes off it?
a-Ferat Recomrs. Inc.
23 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
I would think so.
It would l
2391 329 3
4e l
l l
1 seem that reasonable allowance for this factor is included within 2
the staff's many conservatisms and overestimates of releases as '
3 noted -- and I don't care about the criticism as noted by the i
4 hearing board.
Now, the changes in the last lines of page 49 l
i 5
sort of take the sense from one in which we are sort of saying j
6 that, "Well, the industry wouldn't attempt this unless" -- and 7
you are saying it would not be licensed unless we think.
l t
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You are on the right track.
9 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And I don't have any objection to j
10 that.
f Il COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aren't we prejudging?
Why does!
l 12 the question or licensing come up at this point?
13 MR. EILPERIN :
You are again focusing in this sen-14 tence about what is your prediction for a release.
l 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We are speaking here :. bout 16 whether such a facility will be licensed, which is a different 17 question.
18 MR. SLAGGIE:
You are saying if somebody were to bring 19 up the NSF facility view again and say license it, you would 20 say "No way."
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No, it says "further commercial 22 reprocessing ventures."
That's a wide spectrum.
"Will not be 23 licensed unless we have sound reason to expect much betrer 24 performance, including reduced occupational exposures."
We've
- e-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 just set a whole set of licensing conditions.
2391 330 t,.
49 f
1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, better performance and 2
reduced occupational --
l 3
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That was already built into Barn 4
Barnwell, as f ar as the staff had the case down the line.
I 5
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Are those the only conditions?j 6
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Certainly not the only conditions.
1 7
But let me ask if there is a difference, if there is l
i 8
something that I don't appreciate in changing the sense that l
l 9
people who might like to go out and build a reprocessing plant,,
i 10 we can foresee wouldn't do it unless they had better prospects l
11 than NSF.
That statement, versus the changes that l
l 12 Commissioner Bradford suggested.
f 13 MR. SLAGGIE:
I think Commissioner Kennedy did it, j
I 14 identify that this is, in a sense, a prejudgment on what you 15 would do if you got a certain kind of license application.
The!
i i
16 import that I had in mind wehen we drafted this was that the 17 Commission, after all, does not build facilities; you have no 18 control over what's going to be done on reprocessing until some-19 body proposes something to you for licensing.
And all this said i
20 is nobody is even going to propose such a thing.
So the issue 21 won't even arise unless it's better.
22 As it has been changed, you are saying more.
You are 23 saying and even if they did propose it we wouldn't license it.
I 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
The reason they wouldn't pro-c.3.cere neeenm inc.
25 pose it is they wouldn't think they would get a license.
2391 331
50 l 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Look, how would it be if it t
l 2
said: "It is clear that the general dissatisfaction with the NSF 3
facility; further-commercial reprocessing ventures will not 4
be undertaken unless there is sound reason to expect much bette 5
performance"?
l 6
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That would do for me. It leaves 7
it sort of down the middle.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I don't know.
I don't know i
9 about leaving down the m ddle.
i 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What was troubling me about i
Il the sentence, the way it was is that it just makes a sweeping l
i 12 statement about the range of human behavior that really is not 13 within the Commission's control.
If we say we aren't going to 3
l 14 approve it, well, obviously we can't bind all future Commis-i 15 sieners.
At least we are talking about something that is within' 16 the amplitude of the Regulatory Commission to say nobody's going 17 to walk in the door with an application for something, whil e l
18 it's probably true, just seems to me to say too much.
19 MR. EILPERIN:
License people walking through the door 20 with a reprocessing plant application?
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, we can say no serious student i
22 of the licensing business would approach --
23 (Laughter.)
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't know if that,would co Federst Reoorters, Inc.
25 be right after this conversation.
2391 332
s 51 i
1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Supposing we changed " license.
2 to build"?
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: " Undertaken" is even -- before i l
4
" building" --
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think Peter wants to keep 6
"we."
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
" Undertaken again."
It is l
8 conceivable that somebody might undertake it.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They can't, unless it's going 10 to be licensed.
II COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
- Well, undertaking," to me, i
12 just means " commence."
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They can't commence it; can i
l 14 they?
1 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
They can come in and ask for !
16 a license.
The point is becoming so small it isn't worth hag-i 17 gling over.
I prefer " built," but if I am voted down, I won't i
18 argue with that.
I9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know if I have got strong 20 enough convictions --
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me it doesn't make 22 a difference unless -- cnce a question has been raised, it does 23 make a difference.
One doesn't want to leave the impression 24 that one is neutral or receptive to ventures with the performance c a.a.<.i n. con n. inc.
25 characteristics of the NSF f acilities.
2391 333-
~
n I
m~.
.--.-,,n.n
.w m. - -
wm.
pv7 j
52 ;
1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Nor does one wish to find him-2 self in a position of having prejudged a license matter which 3
will be an adjudicatory question someday brought before it.
4 MR. EILPERIN :
I don't think there could be any legal l
questiontothisiftheword" licensed"wasinthere,becauseIl 5
6 think we have made sufficiently clear the limited purpose of 7
this rule.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would go with " licensed" and 9
"we."
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I assume you would, having proposed l
11 it, Peter?
l l
l 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
l t
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Vic?
j 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it ought to be i
15
" licensed."
l 16 COMMISSIONER AHEABNE:
So you would go with " licensed",
17 and "we"7 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I am not sure how I feel about 19 the entire venture, so it isn't fair for me to inject myself.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
I will vote for it, then.
21 Page 50.
22 MR. EILPERIN:
Excuse me.
Leo brings up cne pcint of 23 clarification that the Commission -- in this statement the 24 Commission -- should say " Commission's."
- s Foceres Rooorters, lec.
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Better, anyway.
2391 334
pv8 1
53 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Page 50, at the bottom.
The pro-i 2
posal is to strike --
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There I was just trying to 4
treat technetium the say way we treated radon.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Radon, I think, was --
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I agree.
i Radon was a major -- the radon dose!
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
l 8
commitment is by a factor of four or five, the biggest dose com-l l
9 mitment in the whole fuel cycle, including reactor operation.
10 What we have said about -- what's fairly clear about 11 technetium is it's a much smaller sort of a proposition and --
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Why, Dick?
i 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don't see any reason to go I
i 14 beyond questions or proceedings that have already been completed.
i 15 If the proceeding is open, why shouldn't it be considered?
WhyI i
16 create three classes of proceedings?
l l
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You've got proceedings in which i
18 everything has been completed and the board is sitting there 19 looking at the record, and you really want to go back and reopen 20 those environmental hearings and those things to hear about 21
. technetium?
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If the proceeding isn't closed?
23 CHAIRMAN HENDFIE:
When is a proceeding closed?
When 24 it gets all the way through the Commission.
- .4.e.r.> R con.n. anc.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The record is ccmplete; the l
'2391 335
yva 54 i
i board has ruled.
4 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would be willing to put words in 3
here which would say " finds it unnecessary to reopen closed 4
proceedings or those in which the environmental portion of the j i
5 hearing" -- what do you call it when you are actually in the l
I 6
room?
7 MR. EILPERIN:
I think just a hearing.
The taking of 8
testimony.
l 9
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
" Finds it unnacessary to either l
10 reopen closed proceedings or those in which the environmental Il portion of the hearing has been completed"?
Or, if they're 12 still in the middle of it and they want to hassle over it, why, i
13 I guess I could go along with that.
i 14 But it just seems to me that you don't really want to i
15 go back and retread a large number of proceedings on a --
l i
16 MR. SLAGGIE:
You do encounter the problem, even with 17 your suggestion, that the environmental proceedings may be, for 18 example, completed before the licensing board.
But, of course, -
19 that's still subject to review on te appeal board's sui sponte 20 reviews, and you're a little bit back to where we were with the, 21 radon review with what do we do when the proceedings ara partly 22 finished but not all the way.
23 CHAIPMAN HENGRIE:
Well, I had been reading " finds 24 it unnecessary to reopen cl: 2ed croceedines" to mean.through the a Feceret Reporters, Inc. t 25 l decision of the licensing board.
Is that going to apply -- does 2391 336 i
55 i
i 1
that mean through final -- I don't know.
Do others read it to 2
mean not only the licensing board but the appeals board and the 3
Commission?
4 MR. SLAGGIE:
I would have read it an open proceeding 5
as one that is still before the appeal board and that final I
6 Commission decision has not been made.
i 7
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That will reach halfway back to 8
God knows where.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, now, let's see --
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am certainly against that.
You i
11 are going to go through the same proposition you went through l
12 with, you know, 20 cases now, going back to retread on the matter i
13 which we judged to be a pretty minimal fact.
I 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Which we don't judge one way i
15 or the other, or else we would be filling in the slot on the 16 table.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am sorry.
We didn't fill in the 18 slot on the table because that didn't get put together in.the 19 staff proposals and so on.
It was brought up at the hearing 20 board, and the hearing board looked at it and so on.
The hear-21 ing board also said because of the considerable overestimates on 22 I-129 releases, the technetium effects were very well covered 23 and, in their view, that was good enough and there didn't need 24 to be a technetium number.
- ee.eersi neoonm. inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But if we were accepting that L
239',
337
Pvil 56 I
view, then we wouldn't be leaving the thing for litigation.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It's not Joe's fault.
3 (Laughter.)
4 MR. EILPERIN :
I think either course is legally
{
l 5
acceptable.
i 6
COMB 1SSIONER AHEARNE:
Which two courses are you 7
speaking of?
There seem to be a variety ~.
8 MR. EILPERIN:
Either excluding technetium from 9
already closed proceedings --
10 COMNISSIONER AHEARNE:
Defined as?
11 MR. EILPERIN:
Defined any way one wants to define it.
i 12
" Closed" is ambiguous, and I think perhaps it would be best to I
13 define it as "through Commission review," if you want, or allow, l
14 ing some further litigation.
15 I think that the hearing board --
I6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What's the difference?
t I7 MR. EILPERIN:
The hearing board has supplied a 18 rationale which, I think, is legally justifiable.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I missed something, Steve.
20 What are the two cases?
l 21 MR. EILPERIN :
The two cases are either that one deals 22 with technetium only in environmenral reports submitted after 23 the effective date of this rule, or that one goes back and --
24 MR. SLAGGIE:
The way we have it written would be the ceJawai Aeoorters. inc.
25 alternative which you just mentioned :
that you only have to 239J 338
pv12.
57 I
i 1
talk about technetium in a proceeding that starts after this i
2 rule goes into effect.
i 3
Another alternative would be to say you don't have 4
to talk about technetium in proceedings that are absolutely l
l l
5 closed, Commission review is all over with.
j 6
But if you have a proceeding that is now going on i
7 and that either before the licensing board or before the appeal!
8 board, you would talk about technetium if somebody wanted to I
9 bring it up.
10 Or you could further permute this and say the Com-I 11 mission could require people to talk about technetium.
f 4
12 There are an infinite variety of ways you could i
13 address this.
i 14 Our inclination was simply that the hearing board did l
15 give you a good rationale for not reopening past proceedings i
16 or injecting the issue into proceedings that are pending, how-17 ever one wants to define "pending."
But then if somebody comes, 18 in and asks for a license, if they should happen after this rule 19 becomes effective, then they would discuss technetium.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But, Leo, there is no techne '
21 tium number, is this right, for all previous licenses?
22 MR. SLAGGIE:
That.s correct.
The table did omit 23 technetium number, and that was probably bad.
However, we have 24 addressed in the statement the fact that the significance of aJederal Reoorters, Inc. ;
25 that omission -- it was probably not environmentally a significant 2391 339 i
i
l j
58 l t
1 omission, and what you are doing now is noting that there is an !
2 omission.
You don't like to put out a table that has a wrong 3
number in it, but you are responding to that prospectively.
It 4
is not that you are ignoring the problem; you're responding to 5
it prospectively, but noting the environmental significance of I
l 6
it is such that it's not worth reopening proceedings now.
l 7
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's see.
On radon we l
t I
8 reopened every proceeding that wasn't actually out the door.
9 Did we instruct the staff to put a radon number in on 10 all those proceedings?
Or did we just make the reopening --
i 11 MR. SLAGGIE:
I think we said it back -- we told the i
l 12 licensing boards. The licensing boards were just to take evi-l 13 dence on radon as though there were no rule.
We told the appeal' i
14 board to essentially do the same thing, but they could manage 15 their docket as they felt would be most suitabl e under the cir I
i i
16 cumstances.
I 17 But the only cases that were grandfathered, so to l
18 speak, with regard to radon were those in which the license had '
t end#21 19 been issuec and final Commission decision had been made.
20 21 2391 340
,2 4
23 24 c e.e.e.i n. con.n. inc..
25 l
ll
R 4618' l
59 mimi t-22&23 mtel I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If one went to the constructionj 2
that the Chairman proposed, that is, that you grandfathered all 3
of those for whom the environmental hearing had been completed, 4
and then at some later stage, say from an Appeal Board action S
that was sent back -- is it possible to write it in such a way i
I 6
that in those cases you then could go into technetium.
i 7
MR. SLAGGIE:
I'm sure it's possible to write it that l
8 way, but it would be difficult.
It would be something that we 9
would have to wrjte very carefully.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess I would agree with II Joe that I have reached the same conclusion, that it is essen-i tially insignificant, and therefore I am not concerned -- I am l
12 13 not disturbed that we don't reopen.
So I wculd go along with i
Id the idea that if the environmental hearing had been completed, 15 that it should not need to be addressed.
But on the other hand, 16 if the environmental portion is reopened by an Appeal Board I7 action, it would then seem to be logical that that would have 18 to be addressed.
MR. SIJ.GGIE :
I suppose we could say that you can 20 discuss technetium in proceedings still pending before the 21 Licensing Board in which either the -- in which the environmental 22 proceeding has not been closed or is reopened by order of the 23 Hearing Board.
We could probably write something like that 24 and I believe it wouldn't get us into trouble.
co Federal Reporters, Inc.
2~8 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
I would go along with that.
2391 341
.mMM
- Nsus, m
ess,M 6 m,.
+-m===esw e--
+= a
-w 60 f te 2 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would prefer the original 2
language, just because it's a lot cleaner and you don't have to 3
try to sort out these questions of if a thing comes back from 4
the Appeals Board on some other subject, then people say, aha, j
l 5
we've got it back in the forum again, now we can chalk up another 6
two months delay or three or whatever, by raising technetium.
7 And I would just as soon not have to deal with that.
But in 8
preference to just taking closed proceedings where that means 1
9 final Commission action and leaving all of that stuff out which 10 is well along the line, why, I would back up.
But you can 11 phrase it -- I guess you can write it.
l l
12 MR. EILPERIN:
Oh, yes.
l 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Leo, to what extent are you l
14 double borrowing, borrowing twice the conservatism in the 15 assumption that all the Icdine 129 is released?
That is, we l
1 16 have used that assumption once to state that it helps out for 17 the nonconservative zero releases, the assumption with regard i
18 to release of waste from the repository.
And now we're borrow-19 ing it again here, specifically Iodine 129, to help to compen-20 '
sate the emission of technetium.
21 MR. SLAGGIE:
I can't answer your question quantita-22 tively, and I don't think the Hearing Board considered the 23 conservatisms in that quantitative fashion, either.
I think 24 their general :Meling was that it was very, very conservative CS Efderal Reoorters, Inc.
I 25 to assume that all this iodine got out.
And I imagine they 2391 342
61 te 3 i
i 1
may be concluding that the chemical and radiological effects of 2
technetium are now understood to iodine, and that's why the i
3 comparison could be made, although I don't know technically.
I i
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I wasn't so much concerned 5
with that as with this question of borrowing the same conser-u 6
vatism to patch up various other places on the table.
7 MR. SLAGGIE:
There's a lot of conservatism there.
8 I guess we're drawing on a big account.
9 (Laughter.)
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Can I find a majority some-i 11 place?
Would you go with --
l I
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would have gone a little i
I 13 further.
But this is one that I'll take what I can get on.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
With the thing John his proposed?
f 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
i 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
All right.
Let me just note, 18 however, that is really jury-rigging the proceedings in a very 19 strange way.
It seemed to me that either we ought to exclude 20 them altogether, which is the way the thing was written in the 21 first place, or alternatively, follow the perfectly rational l
22 j course which Peter proposes, on the other.
I 23 What we have done is develop a halfway irrational 24 sort of jury-rigged operation to accommodate and a whole new --
e.a.eune neoonen, inc.
25 unlike the radon case, which we had already acted on, unlike l
2391 343 li
te 4 62 l
1 the proposal to eliminate it altogether, we finally found another i
2 formula.
AndIdon'tsupposethat'sreallyverygoodrulemaking]
3 But there we are.
4 Shall we go on to page 51?
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
51.
These comments now have to l
I 6
do with the explanatory narrative we have instructed the 7
staff to construct.
You want an insert which says without a l
8 narrative -- the table is ultimately of little use.
i 9
COMMI.SSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, the sentence was longer '
i 10 than that.
It's not cuite that.
11 (Laughter.)
12 MR. EILPERIN:
I would mention that on page 10 we havei i
13 a discussio'n about the use of the table, and it is said to be i
a 14 an important -- serves as an important first step.
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is a somewhat more 16 constructive way of saying that more needs to be done.
17 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you want to say something, I 18 certainly would hope to find a more positive way to say it than 19 to get to page 51 of an order on a three or two-year rulemaking, 20 and then announce that it isn't worth a tinker's dam without 21 some piece of flimflam still to come, which may or may not be 22 part of the rules, as a matter of fact.
23,
COMMISSIONER dRADFORD:
I was about to propose i
24 crossing out everything from "without 4" in my insert and es Foceraf Reporters. Inc.
25 letting the sentence begin " Ultimately, however," and then
.i 2391 344 n
te 5 i
63 1
putting it back on page 10.
f 2
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
How would you read it?
How 3
would it say, Peter?
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
" Ultimately, however, it is l
l 5
the impact of the releases and not the releases itself."
And 6
I would put that after the sentence on page 10 that now ends l
7 with the phrase " generic rulemaking."
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And you would then say, right l
9 after tha:
i 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Generic -- "has been j
f 11 extensively considered in generic rulemaking.
Ultimately, j
12 however, it is the impact of the releases and not the releases 13 themselves" -- well, I guess that would still want to be reworked I
'14 a little.
But that thought go in there.
And then I would start; i
15 a new paragraph with the words "adoptiun of this rule," because i
16 that paragraph has then become too heavy.
17 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
You wouldn't start it with 18 "use"?
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why am I having trouble finding 20 this thing?
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Vcd're probably looking --
22 you're probably looking at the original and not at your copy.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's true, because I only have 24 the pages with the changes on them.
M9CFSI RfDorters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, that's what yet-need, is 2391 345
te 6.
64 l l
l 1
my change to page 10.
~
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Oh, I see.
All right.
3 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:
Oh, yes, that's right.
I see.
i 4
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You would put it in where, Peter?
I 5
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right after " considered in I
6 generic rulemaking."
I need to rewrite it, frankly, and i
7 essentially, without that first clause that was giving you l
i 8
trouble.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could you rewrite it right now?!
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm trying, I'm trying.
II (Pause.)
j i
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think what I would do is to l 13 strike the thing that I had into page 10 before that, " adoption l l
14 of this rule is not foreclosed," and instead put in the word 15 "therefore" and go right into use.
So why don't I just read l
i 16 it:
" Relieving" -- starting on what is now page 1.5:
" Relieving l t
i 17 adjudicatory boards from the need to determine those nume:dcalimpa:ts 18 of the uranium fuel cycle which have been extensively considered; i
19 in generic rulemaking.
Ultimately, however, the impacts of the 20 releases and not the releases themselves dictate the standards i
21 that we must set.
Therefore, the use of the table," et cetera, 22 et cetera.
I 23 MR. EILPERIN:
If the Commission wants to put in 24 "the Commission" instead of "we" as it has been doing all along, z Fecersi Recorters, Inc.
25 that's all right.
us9I 346 7X I
l
te 7 65 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Fine.
3i CEAIRMANEENDRIE:
That sounds okay, yes.
4 Does anybody foresee any pitfalls we haven't felt 5
there?
i 6
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It looks okay.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Now, having done that, does I
8 the statement of considerations we have now anywhere mention i
9 the update, the concept of an S-3 update?
10 MR. SLAGGIE:
Oh, yes.
Footnote 23 or something.
i 11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Fine.
As long as that idea l
12 is in there, that's fine.
i i
13 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Page 52.
I'm afraid that proposed i
14 insert gives me considerable pain, Peter.
It goes well beyond, l 15 it seems to me, well beyond the scope that we established for i
16 the staff narrative to be prepared in three months.
And based 17 upon the record in the rule, I thought it was to be along the 18 line of the Board's recommendations.
19 I'm afraid if you go over and talk about full period 20 of toxicity and discussion of the uncertainties and discussion i
21 of fuel cycle impacts relationships, if you detail all of these 22 things, you're talking about a good chunk of the upgrade rule 23 in the area where it would begin to deal with those things and 24 health effects, and will just get beyond the capacity of the ces.e.,.i n corms, inc.
25 staff to produce on the scope and in the time frame that we j
2391 347
te 8, 66 I
i' 1
have put down.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, my feeling is, as stated, 1
3 in the insert that we have just modified, the table really is 4
of very limited use without a sense of these things, at least f
I 5
to me.
And I am just trying to keep whatever pressure I can on l 6
the system to get the best crack at each point.
If a draft 7
narrative comes down containing things that we just think are i
i h
a too uncertain to go with, we can always delete it.
If the l
9 staff wants simply to say that they don't have good information 10 on that yet, we don't have to put it in.
I 11 But I guess I am just trying to sort of see what the 12 system can produce and decide, once we get it, whether we have 13 something that at that point we care to make part of the l
14 proceeding or whether we really would want to defer it.
r 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you go with instructions like 16 this, why, you have in effect countermanded the instructions 17 they have been working on since Februtry when they got started.
18 And it goes -- you know, you're just not going to have that kind 19 of scope on the thing until you get to the upgrade rule.
20 '
COMMISSIONER BRAD.PORD:
When do you see that as 21 being --
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, the upgrade rule, the first 23 cut at it was -- for a vote was originally scheduled at the end 24 of this year.
Now, wnat effect other activities in the agency
- eSeoerm Reparem, Inc.
25 new going on are going to have on that, I don't know.
To scme 1
2391 348
- e 9 67 !
t 1
extent, that staff was not directly concerned in Three Mile.
2 On the other hand, some of them keep getting drawn off for jobs 3
which they would not otherwise have to do if there were not j
l 4
Three Mile-occupied people elsewhere.
So I think it's at least l 3
S the end of the year for the upgrade rule.
And you remember, 6
one of the things that we wanted to do with the narrative to be i
l 7
proposed for a supplementary rulemaking was to have it based on 8
a recurd established in the present proceeding and along the 9
lines of the Board's recommendation and get it on now so it 10 would be available.
11 I'm afraid here is a sicuation in which the time scale' 12 is not possible.
The three months isn't going to make -- and l
13 you know, I'd like to point out once more that two years ago, 14 for lack of 20-odd pages of Q's and A's at a hearing that 15 Pittman testified at, we went into a rulemaking to provide t
16 some information to back up certain curie release numbers to 17 bc used in this table on what is damn near a peripheral matter la in reactor licensing, namely what fraction of the back end of 19 the fuel cycle ought you to assign against a particular reactor, 20 l recognizing that those facilities service a number.
21 You haven't got here the whole feel cycle rule, and 22 you know, there have been all along, you know, various thrusts 23 l to say, let's make this the big deal, and it just wasn't cut 24 l that way in the beginning.
And I don't think the record is z-Feersi Rmoners, inc.
25 established that the Board has acted.
I just don't think you l
2391 349
- e 10 68 l
1 can recut it to make it, for the foreseeable future, a fuel 2
cycle rule of the Commission.
I think that lies yet before us.
3 You know, I know you want to keep the pressure on the Lystem, 4
but I have very grave -- I just think that this is counterproduc-i i
5 tive and will defeat, in fact, there being narrative available l
i 6
for review and recommendations for change that we could then 7
get out for comment built into the rule.
i i
8 MR. EIPERIN:
I would just point out that three years l 9
ago the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals -- and I quote this in 10 footnote 43 -- observed that the environmental effects to be 11 considered are those flowing from the reprocessing and passive i
12 storage for the full detoxification period.
So at least there i
I 13 has been some court guidance rendered in July 1976 that says I'
14 that this is a subject to be considered.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess I share Peter's 16 concern, and that was an argument that I recall we had a debate 17 or a discussion at the time when the staff was up here going 18 through all of this, and those are the items that I certainly 19 want to see in the upgrade.
20 But I have to agree with Joe that we went through that-21 argument.
I would have preferred to see that in that narrative, 22 but that's not where we came out.
Where we came out was, the 23 narra :ive is recommended by the Hearing Board.
And I would 24 agree with Joe that if we now try to retorque, redirect the
- .mer i neoon u. inc.
25 staff, we are likely neither to get the narrative they are 2391 350
e 11 69 I
working on in any reasonable time, and I think we'll just
{
2 postpone -- so I guess what I would just modify is putting a 3
draft narrative as recommended by the Hearing Board.
I 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's what it says on page 51.
1 5
COMMISSIONER MIEARNE:
Right.
But then where we said 6
we have directed the staff to prepare a draft narrative or i
7 leave it.
i 8
MR. EILPERIN:
If the Commission wants to consider it, 9
there is some language in Mr. Chilk's memorandum of February 26,,
i 10 1979, relating to what should be considered in the narrative.
I 11 If I can read that for the Commission's consideration.
l l,
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why don't you?
That, at le as t,'
13 we know would not be a deviation from the previous order.
I 14 MR. EILPERIN:
It says:
"In taking this action, the i
15 Commission requested that the statement of considerations include 16 the following:
(ja) a statement that the Commission accepts the 17 modified table s a final rule, noting in appropriate language 18 the circumstance mentioned by Commissioner Bradford that in 19 fact the table is more in the nature of an interim final rule; 20 (b) language stating the Commission has directed the staff to 21 prepare within three months from publication of the rule a 22 draft explanatory narrative along the lines recommended by the 23 Hearing Board, suitable for issuance for public comment in 24 further supplementary rulemaking promulgating the nattative as co-Foceral Reporters, Inc.,
i 25 ;lpart of the fuel cycle rule.
The narrative would address, among l
[
2391 351
e 12 i
70 '
)
other things, dose commitments and health effects from releases l l
2 in the table, socioeconomic impacts and cumulative impacts and 3
fuel cycle activities.
l 4
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's the three-month 5
narrative.
6 MR. EILPERIN:
That's correct.
i 7
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
May I see that?
8 (Hands document to Comn.issioners. )
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That presumably is what they i
10 are doing.
r-22 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would hope.
l 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, there's no problem with!
i 13 using that language.
i 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, that would be fine.
i 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Isn't that what it says on 16 page 51:
"Until such a rule is developed, important generic 17 fuel cycle issues must continue to be litigated in individual 18 reactor licensing procedures.
These f.ssues include, but are 19 not necessarily limited to environmental dose commitments and healt 20 ffects from fuel cycle releases, fuel cycle socioeconomic impacts 71 and possible cumulative impacts. Pending further treatment by rule-22 making,NRC Staff is directed to acdrass these matters in environmen jo 2,
tal analvsis accompanying these proposals to issua a limited work 24 authorization," et cetera.
Co-Federal Recorters, tric.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That only says they should 2391 352
Ite 13
~
71; I
write a narrative i
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes, it does.
1
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
3 In le next sentence it says: "The 4
Commission has accepted the Hearing Board's recommendation that 5
an explanatory narrative which addresses these subjects should i
i 6
be prepared and adopted as part of the fuel cycle rule.
7 Although such a narrative is not legally required," et cetera, 8
"we believe it ought to be done.
The Commissioners directed i
9 the staff :o prepare a draf t narrative. "
10 So it says that.
It uses the same language.
i 11 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I presume thnt's why you drafted 1
i 12 it that way.
l i
13 MR. SLAGGIE:
It sounds reasonable.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Because it reflects the phrasing 15 in the Commission's decision memorandum.
16 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, in view of that language, 17 do you want to put in at 52 "a draft narrative, as recommended la by the Hearing Board"?
That is, repeat that phrase, let that 19 do it?
20 MR. SLAGGIE:
The problem with that, maybe, is that 21 the Hearing Board's recommendations, as you may recall, were 22 spread throughout and they were not easy to figure out exactly 23 what the Hearing Board was saying should be done now and 24 should be done later.
There was considerable discussion by co Federst Reoorters, Inc. l; 25 the Commission with regard to that, and I think what we came l
2391 353 L
.te l'4 72 1
out with was this notice that Steve just read to you, the 2
resolution of what the Commission decided to do, consistent 3
with what the Hearing Board recommended, but not necessarily 4
exactly the same, since nobody could figure out exactly what l
5 the Hearing Board had recommended.
t 6
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Does this mean, then, the 7
measures that we are saying we can't cope with in the short run 8
generica?.iy are consequently available for litigation in the i
9 individual proceedings?
Dose commitments beyond 100 years, 10 all of those things that are not covered?
11 MR. SLAGGIE:
Yes.
Everything is available for i
12 litigation that is not explicitly excluded, and we have listed 13 a nu:aber of things that are available, but we didn't say that's, 14 all.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Since it's already included, 16 as Dick says, I will just pass.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I would 16t it stand as it is here 18 without additional words.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All right.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What dces Peter want?
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's all right.
23 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, let us do it that way.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It's not what I want, but
- ..F.cerei Recorws, inc.
25 it's abour what I'll get.
Sometimes you have to tailor what i
'2391 354 ha
te 15 73 1
you want to what you're going to get anyway.
i 2
CEAIRMAN EENDRIE:
Okay.
The rest of it, so far as i
l 3
I know, since people had already signed off on the thing and i
4 noted without objection or whatever, I assume it's okay.
5 MR. EILPERIN:
May we give the Commission some i
6 language to consider about technetium now and draft it up, 7
language which we think carries out the Commission's judgment?
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, please.
9 COMMISSIOKZR KENNEDY:
I will wish to read it i
10 carefully.
I will reserve any comment on it.
i 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, let's listen to it now.
j 12 MR. EILPERIN:
This is on page 50, toward the bottcm:.
13 "In view of the Hearing Board's conclusion that the 14 conservative assumption of complete release of Iodine 129 15 tends to compensate for the omission of technetium from i
16 Table S-3, the Commission finds it unnecessary to reopen 17 closed proceedings or proceedings before the Appeal Board."
18 And then, a new insert:
"In proceedings before 19 Licensing Boards in which consideration of environmental 20,
issues has not been concluded or has been reopened by order i
21 of the Appeal Board, magnitude and significance of technetium 22 releases from back end fuel cycle activities may be considered."
23 And then that concludes that discussion.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That does it.
- e-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I assume we are going to be 2391 355
tte l6 74 I
i I
afforded an opportunity to read that?
2 MR. EILPERIN:
Whatever the Commission wants.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I am requesting an opportunity.
i 4
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Will we need another meeting, 5
then, to affirm this order?
l f
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would assume we would wish i
7 one anyway. Considering the vast number of changes that have l
l 8
been made, we certainly ought to have an opportunity to at 9
least read through the thing.
i l
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Since we have fought through for j
11 two long afternoons through assorted pages here, I would have 12 hoped that the Commission could vote this order and leave it i
13 to the general counsel to produce a final copy and get it out.
14 MR. EILPERIN:
I think every language change has been, i
15 voted on, so it's purely ministerial on our part.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
For myself, I would like to 17 see a complete version.
to COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I certainly would.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Realistically, I probably 20 would need until Monday to produce those footnotes on the 21 separate view cn cross-examination.
But none of that need 22 affect what's happening ii the rest of it.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I think, unless there 24 are gcing to be people adding substantial comments.which might CS-E9defst Rfoorters, If1C.
25 be necessary to ec= men on, I would have no problem with going 2391 356 h.
.te 1-7--
75 i
I with it.
i 2
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I consider them devastating.
i 3
(Laughter.)
l i
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Only that?
l l
i 5
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But no more devastating than 6
the points I have already made.
If you could stand those, you 7
could stand these.
l 8
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So I would be, I guess, ready 9
to go.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, why don't you produce a 11 final copy and circulate it to Commissioners with a consent i
12 sheet?
I must say, I would have thought we spent enough time 13 to be able to let the matter go forward.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I thought that was true two 15 days ago when four of us had already voted the matter.
Now I
16 we are dealing with a different draft.
It seems that those 17 who had already voted on an early one ought to at least have 18 an opportunity to read through a completed version of a new 19 paper.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
As I have outlined it, i
21 then, the Commission will take a short recess.
The staff 22 members for the Oyster Creek briefing are not with us yet.
-23 23 (Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m.,
the hearing was adjourned.)
24 co Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 l
2391 357 L
.