ML19276F555

Transcript of 790320 Public Meeting Re NRC Legislative Proposals in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-73

ML19276F555
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/20/1979
From:	Ahearne J, Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7904060048
Download: ML19276F555 (75)

Text

.

(

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

IN THE MATTER OF:

PUBLIC MEETING NRC LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

(

Place - Washington, D. C.

Date.

Tuesday, 20 March 1979 Pages 1-73 ORC [oCTC) 7.enen.:

(202)347 37co ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.

OfficalReponers

.t.u Ncch C: itel Street Wcshingen. 0.C. 20C01 NATIONWIDE CCVERAGE. DAILY VP

l

~

3504 -

z a s $}.

s' 2

\\\\

.c

.4 O gND 1

,J, 1

v r

DISCLAIMER s'

as This is an unofficiai transcript of a meeting of the Unite

' Nuclear Reculatory Commission herd on on v a 19 9 Commission s offices at 1717 H Street, H. W., '.iasnington, 0. g.

_ine i

=7danca' and observation.

inis eransc.1p-

' lic a"ked, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

a o

en r iered correc

' The transcript is intended solely for general inferna'tienal purposes.

rovid'as 'v 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the rarmal or in7ormal M

rec rd of dec'ision of the matters discussed.

Expressions o7 opinion in

~

this transcript do no' necessarily reflect final ceterminations or,.

be11ers.

s........,

o r a 3 -- -.n,-

- '- a any proceeding as the result or or addressegcontained herein, e

.o an p-s 6

g e

l E

1-A I

Madelon UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3-I 4l COMMISSION MEETING Si on 0

NRC LEGISLATIVE PRCPOSALS 7

8!

Room 1130 l

1717 H Street, 9l Washington, D.C.

I 10 '

Tuesday, 20 March 1979 11 The Committee met, pursuant to notice at 2:15 p.m.

I2 :

Mr. Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman, presiding.

13 BEFORE:

Id JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman i

15 VICTOR GILINSKY, Member 16 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Member I7 PETER A.

BRADFORD, Member 18 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Member 19 l l

l 20 1 21 22 23 :

i 24 i nw seconers, ine. '

en 2; i i

i

2 I

I Madelon

_P _R O C _E _E _D _I N G _S pbl 2 ll CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, the Commission meets this

, l!

afternoon to discuss, again, legislative proposals.

I 4j Commissioner Bradford hasn't managed to get back I

Si from his trip north.

Commissioner Kennedy is tied up at the 6,

moment.

And I'm not sure whether Commissioner Gilinsky will I

7I be in or not, maybe later.

8 I'll tell you what my intent would be:

9 We have a redraft that's been circulated by the 10 i Counsel's Office on possible siting and licensing legislation.

11 In writing up what they inferred was the Commission's intent, to 12 the extent it was inferrible, at any rate, there is some 13 language here which differs from previous language in a 14 last year's administration bill or in the draft language the 15 Commission worked on in September a year ago.

16 And I would like this afternoon to probe some at I7 that and uncerstand the differences and the meanings and so 0

on.

I would not expect to, even if we accumulate some more i

I' l manpower on this side of the table, I would not expect to try 20 l to come to decisions section by section, or in any sense.

21 This afternoon's discussion is to understand what 22,

has been drafted here, and how it differs in the effects and l

23 1 i

so on.

l 24 '

I will also comment, I would like the Commission tras Reoorters, Inc. ;

a 94 to have an opportunity later on to have what I trust will be

~

i i

3 I

mpb2 a brief meeting, a closed meeting on personnel matters.

I i

2 marked it, I sent around word that it was tentative.

If we had all been here and were, you know, gung-ho to hammer away i

4l on this new draft, why, I'd be inclined to put the time into l

I 5;

that.

But there are some things that I want to discuss brief-0l ly.

7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I am gung-ho to get started:

8 on this draft.

9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, I'm ready too, John.

10 '

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

In a somewhat different 11 sense, perhaps.

12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

We don't have all of the I3 parties ready at-hand.

I4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Amongst some of the 15 questions I'd 'd.ke to explore this afternoon, I carefully 16 l went through the transcript of the meeting I missed, and in 17 the absence of sign language that may have been passed in 18 some way, I will be interested in finding where some of the I9 l things came from that are in these things.

I could track 20,

them either in the notes from the meetings I had attended nor i

i 21 1 the transcript of the one I didn't.

22 i

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Wcil, I must say, I think the i

23 [

guidance level was not what you would call very specific in i

24 any sense, and I suspected in a number of cases, why, the

s tal Recorters, Inc.

25 Counsel's Office had scratched their heads and finally decided i

i I

4 it I l.

they couldn't make out exactly what the next net thrust mpb3 l

2f amongst the several Commissioners was,

,a So they went ahead and said Well, let's draft I

d something maybe the way it ought to be and see what happens.

5 (Laughter.)

6 i

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

And if it helps us to move l

7I i

forward, all right, it's a fair enough basis.

8 Len, why don't I ask you and Carl and Peter to 9

go ahead.

10 '

MR. STOIBER:

Perhaps I would just briefly 11 introduce the paper by saying it is meant only as a discussion 12 draf t and certainly there were some points on which we made 13 6

.some guesstimates about what we thought the --

1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, I noticed you didn't include a transmittal letter with it.

16 MR. STOIBER:

Well --

I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

They were afraid you would I8 sign it.

19 MR. STOIBER:

It was one week away and we weren't 20 prepared to do that.

21 You will have noticed it is a considerably more 22 restricted proposal than the Commission approved in September

,31 l

of 1977, down from about 55 pages to a lean and mean 20 pages, i

24l' oerhaps cetting even smaller.

.cs erst Rooorters, Inc.,

25 ;

The draft was prepared in eight basic sections.

i e

I

5 I

mpb4 There are seven sort of operative sections and one findings 2

i and purpose section.

Three of the sections amend various II 3p provisions of the Atomic Energy Act.

There are four new 4

sections of the Atomic Energy Act that would be created.

4 SI And what we did was to cover the points vb'.re we felt from 6

the discussion that the Commission wanted to retain proposals 7

to offer to the Congress or to submit to Congressman Dingle.

l 8

or Udall as possible fodder for their consideration.

9 The areas in which the statute would be amended 10 1 are in the ACRS review area, to eliminate the mandatory II nature of ACRS review, the second area is to amend the 12 construction permit section, 185, to provide for combined 13 CP-OL.

14 Th e hearing section, 189, is somewhat amended.

15 And then the four r.a sections.

16 The amended sections are Section 182B on ACRS 17 review, Section 185 on construction --

18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Wait a minute.

I9 Section 180--

20,

MR. STOIBER:

185.

2I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

What was the first one?

22 MR. STOIBER:

1823.

23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

This was?

24 l MR. STOIBER:

ACRS review.

tral Rooorters. inc. l

s 25 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes?

i

6 i;

4 1

i!

IU mpb5 MR. STOIBER:

Section 185, construction permits, 2'

was also amended to deal with combined CP-OL.

2 CHAIRMM HENDRIE:

Yes?

MR. STOISER:

The hearing section was somewhat 5

altered, section 189.

ii 6

And then Section 192 on temporary operating 7!

licensed, which is lapsed, now retitled and made into an i

3 entirely new section entitled "Early Site Approval for the 9'

Utilization of Production Facilities".

i 10 There is a new section created, 193, on Interim 11 0 Operating Licenses.

12 There is a new Section 194 on Intervenor Funding i

13 to establish a pilot program of almost precisely the same --

I#

well, it is precisely the sane as the section in 1977.

15 '

And a new Section 195 on Coordination of Federal 16 1

}

Reviews, which would place NRC in a coordinative role.

I I7 Now we did omit quite a number of items that were 18 i l'

in the past proposal and in the administration proposal, and 19 i substantially reduced the size of other portions.

For example, 20 l the hearing section, 189, was heavily amended in the last l

21 y

versions.

And our changes to that are substantially smaller.

il 22l There is no separate section on standardization 23 l as such, although it is mentioned in the Findings and Purposes.

l 2 4 "'

There is no section on advanced planning, and there is no e

ne a.oonen. inc.

• S '

section whatsoever on delegation of environmental or need for l

llt

-=y s

16 mob 6 I

cower reviews to the states.

2:

So those are the very large areas that were in the administration bill and in your last proposal that we cut out.

il 4f CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let me note and sort of re-t 5

iterate my feeling last time that if indeed we stick here r

6 to the proposition that we only suggest changes or additions 7f to the statute where it's clear that the Commission's t

8i existing authorities do not permit some ressonable accomplish-9 ment of the objective through rulemaking or some way under i

10 our existing powers, that nevertheless other things, like i

i 11 ll standardization and some of the other things that you mentioned I

12 l I think ought to be discussed in more than a trivial way in I3 the acccmpanying language that goes along that might furnish I

14 ll a basis for a conference report if one got to that stage at 15 ]' some point, because I think it's useful to have in the legisla-i.

16 1 tive history a recognition of these things and the reasons why a

I' 17 1 they are not in this bill and were in previous proposals, I

18 l rather than just to ignore them totally in the legislative i

19 1 package.

I

• 0 i By the way, let me ask another question:

21 Out of this, are you at a stage where any progress i

22 '

could be made toward a draf t answer to the Udall-Bingham 1

23 !;!

letter?

I 24 1

MR. STOIBER:

We should have that for you later u

' erst Aeoorters, Inc.

in the week.

i le

8 h

I mpb7 I ll CHA!RMAN HENDRIE:

Okay.

2 ',

So that is coming along.

2 MR. STOIBER:

Part of the package --

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

The way some of that is phrased S

may indeed depend on discussions still to be held and deci-6 sions still to be made by the Commission.

But it seemed to I

7 me on a number of items, why, the thrust was clear.

3 MR. STOIBER:

There will be several parts of this i

9 package that we have not gotten to yet, including the section 10 about construction analysis, which could mention some of these II items that you have indicated.

I I2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Is 3t true,. Carl, that you I3 do see that this would erovide the answer to Dingle?

U MR. STOIBER:

There would he a separate letter 4

15 to Congressman Dingle calling attentio1 to the two items that 16 [

he was specifically interested in but this would be the r

p I7 l answer to Congressman Dingle.

18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Ok.!.y.

I MR. STOIBER:

Before aski1g Peter Crane to l

20 f perhaps lead you through the specifica of the draft, I did 21 want to mention also that on the 15th,.yet another siting

'2 l, and licensing proposal was submitted to the Congress by 23 l l

Senators Johnston, and I believe also Church and Jackson.

i 24 't And it was included as Title 5 to the Nuclear Waste Policy

.a ms neconen, enc..

25 i

Act, which contains waste management features, such as i.

9 i;

h 0

'l mpblo I!

away-from-reactor storage and the rest.

It appears to me to 2

be a move on the part of that committee to obtain some 2

jurisdiction in this aren, d

4 I would just briefly what's in that Title 5 5

for your interest, and we will be further analy::ing that for 6

you.

7!

Title 5 is entitled Civilian Nuclear Power Plant l

8 Siting, and it has five sections.

It's in the Congressional l

'l Record of March 15th.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Is that circulating around to 11 l us?

12 MR. STOIBER:

We did bring copies up.

13 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Now that's what I call I

I#

rapid circulation.

15 l (Handing documents to the Commissioners.)

6 CHAIR.%N HENDRIE:

Go. ahead.

F I7 !

MR. STOIBER:

And if you go back to page -- this 18 l package includes the whole bill, so if you go back to page l

19 '

l S2889, you'll see where it starts Title V.

l 20 !

(Commissioner Kennedy arriving at 2:30.)

2I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Do you have another one, Peter?

22 ll (Handing document to the Commissioner.)

'l 23 l MR. STOI3ER:

Commissioner Kennedy, we are i

24 noting the existance of vet another siting and licensing e

use neoonm. inc.

25 proposal in the Congress, S685.

i!

ll

10 l

1 h

o mpb9 IE COMMISSICNER KENNEDY:

How nice.

2' MR. STOIBER:

It was submitted last week by 2

Senators Johnston, Jackson and Church.

And this is basically J

4 part of their Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

5 But Title V, which you will find beginning on page d

6; S2889, includes five sections dealing with nuclear power 7l plant licensing.

And as I was saying, it appears that this 3

is an effort on the part of the Energy Committee to obtain 9;

jurisdiction over some of this area.

10 l The five sections do the following things:

11 ll Section 501 is an early site approval provision.

i I2 It creates a new section 193 of the Atomic Ene gy Act.

13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Hhve you read it against the Id language of either our old draft or the administration's bill I

15 ';

of last year?

16 MR. STOIBER:

We have.only quickly gone through it.

17 !

Some of the provisions look very close to last year's i

18 :

administration bill; others are quite different.

1 I' !

I'll mention particularly Section 504.

It appears i

20 !

to me that r.he line of thinking here basically is consistent l

21 l with industry thinking as we have seen it in prior testimony 22 h at other bills about what a desirable siting and licensing 1

23 floor measure should include.

1 24 e

Section 502 would create a new Section 194 of the e

.r i n. con m.inc.

'5 l

Atomic Energy Act entitled Standardi::ed Designs, and it icoks 1l

!l

11 mpbl0 I

very much like the administration's last proposal in that area.

2[

It creates a design good for ten years, which allows modifica-2 tion only if there is a substantial improvement to the health dI and safety --

5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

A decision which the 6

Commission must find.

l 7l MR. STOIBER:

Right.

I B

Section 503 creates a new Section 275 of the 9

Atomic Energy Act entitled Finality of Determination.

This 10 would make a state submission to the Commission on need for II power or choice of nuclear power over alternate sources or 12 l types of power binding.

And that is something I think that I3 !

we have not seen before.

I I

Id I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That?

Yes, it says.

But i

J *c i in a sense that's either interpreting or somehow amending i

16 '

NEPA, really.

Y 17 l MR. STOIBER:

Yes.

I 18 '

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It mentions it specifically.

l9 l MR. STOIBER:

Section 504 --

t 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let's see.

It says "if such 21 l determination".

These would be ones made by the state about

,, ]

need for power or choice --

!I 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Or Bonneville or TVA.

24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

- "Or by the governing body a

eren neconen.Inc.

25 of a nonregulated electric utility..."

l Il

12 il f

f I

mpbll COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Right.

2E CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Does that mean we have 52 states, i'

2j 53?

4 Anyway:

5,

"...if such determination was made 6'

after public hearings in accordance with 7l administrative procedures similar to those 1

8 which would apply to such determinations l

9 if made by the Commission."

10 l So I guess there we would find ourselves trying II to establish rules for that.

I2 f (Commissioner Gilinsky arrives at 2:35.)

i 13 l Vic, this Counsel tells us of a recent introduc-l Id tion on the Senate side, and if you turn back a couple of pages 15 you'll find that this is a waste -- it's got a lot of things 16 about waste, but there's a Title V.in here which now incor-ll 17 porates some sections which at least up through here someplace i

I8 l are fairly similar to the administration on early site and I

19 ;

standardization.

l 20 l Now this one's a little bit different.

We were 21 just in the process of talking about that, 503.

22 l i

MR. STOIBER:

Section 504 creates a new Section 23 l 185a of the Atomic Energy Act, and this is essentially the 24 '

combined CP-OL section.

But the verv interesting part of a

era 6 Reoorters, Inc.

this statute is Section b there at the bottom of the last i

i

13 i

mpbl2 1

column of S2889.

2i And this is what I would describe as a back-2 fitting clause.

And at the bottom there you will see the 4,

following language:

5 "The Commission may require the 6

design or construction of a production 7{

or utilization facility to comply with 8

rules or regulatory standards promulgat-i 9

ed by the Commission subsequent to such 10,

date only if the Commission finds, for 11 reasons stated in its order, that such 12 compliance is required substantially i

13 l to improve public health and safety or 14 l, the common defense and security."

15 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

This is putting regula-16 'O tions into the law?

It's a little stronger, isn't it?

17 MR. STOIBER:

It's stronger than that, I think.

18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

What does the present rule 19 !

say?

20 !

MR. STOIBER:

There isn't anything really compar-t 21 able to this, i

22 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

We have a backfitting rule, 231l which, of course, we never use.

l' 24 'l!;

MR. PARLER:

There's a backfitting rule in w

ersi seconers. inc. 'j 25 Section 109 of the regulations, but there is no backfitting I I h

ll

14 i

!!l i

mpb13 Ij regulation in the Atomic Energy Act itself.

2I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

What does the language 3

l say in the rule?

Refresh ri memory, if you will.

i!

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

You have to find that there is' is substantial additional protection which is necessary or 6

needed.

It's either required or necessary.

I 7l CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And the Staff never i

8l uses that rule.

9:

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

But this ties into the i

10 date of docketing of the construction permit.

i 11ll i

MR. PARLER:

Well, but the language in the regula-I I2 l tion says that the Commission may require the backfitting of I3 a facility if it finds that such action will provide substan-1 Id !

tial additional protection which is required for the public 15 'i health and safety or the common denfense and security.

16 'O COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

But there you're talking 11 I7 about backfitting which at least I would have thought would I8 be something partially constructed or already constructed.

19 This pins it to the date of docketing for the construction i

• 01

• j permit.

2I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

72 lj, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

There's an element of back-

'l 23 fitting in any requirement after the issuance of the construc-F 24,;

tion permit.

.m eroi Recor.ers. inc.

25 '

CHAIRMAN HENDRII:

Well, that's right, or even, for ii

]

i

15 a

f i

mpbl4 I I.

that matter, the date of docketing when presumably the op application met all of the requirements, as of that date.

i 9 i l

This just says that the thing is in effect on

~

the date of docketing, the regulations and the regulatory i

5' standards are the basis on which the facility will be judged t

6 '"

subsequently unless the Commission issues an order saying i

7 that other things are required to,substantially o improve 8;

public health and safety and the common defense and security.

I 9

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, it seems to me i

10 what it does is it forces the agency to actually apply that 11 l

rule which is not now being applied.

12 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think that's right.

And with l

(

13 slightly different phraring.

I I#

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Right.

I mean, it may 1

15 '

j be a little stronger or less strong.

16 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

And it requires a public 17 i i

hearing.

18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, but that's probably 19 i the case now.

i

.O MR. PARLER:

The important change which the i

21 1 j

language in 685 makes to the pertinent language in the I

'2~k Atomic Energy Act is this:

'l 23 h The present Atomic Energy Action, Section 185,

.I 24 1 entitled Construction Permit, says upon the completion of x

m., n.oorms, e ne. -

25 l the construction of the facility, upon the filing of any l

l

16 ii O

mobl5 Il additional information needed to bring the original applica-

• l tion up to date, upon the finding that the facility aurhorized 2,

has been constructed and will operate in conformity with the 4

1. l application as amended, and in conformity with provisions 1

0j of the Act, and any other rules and regulations of the 6j Commission -- it doesn't say rules and regulations of the 1

7 Commission upon the docketing of the application.

O I MR. STOIBER:

I think there is another signifi-9 l:

cant change too, and that's the addition of the word "only".

10]'

,]

The Commission can "only" do this upon the finding of substan-t-

11!l tial improvement to the public health and safety.

12 MR. BICKWIT:

I think that would be the understand-13 ]I

,l ing.

14 !l MR. STOIBER:

But it means it's a mandatory it 15 ',l q

provision that one has to.

16 "i' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

And the reason, as I under-9 l

17 'i stand it, that the current rule is not used is that it gets I0 the Staff into this question of, you know, if it was safe before, why do we require it now?

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

If we require it now -- the

'i 21 h ji regulators --

'2.l ll COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Dilemma.

h

'3 !l 9

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Dilemma.

,, n, MR. STOIBER:

The fifth and last section in Title 4

teral Reoorters, Inc. I 25 V is a section which would designate NRC as the lead agency

,l i,

,i b

17

'l IU mpbl6 for consideration involved in nuclear facility applications and -- cuote:

2

"...for ccordination of all Federal

1. j responsibility for such licensing."

cd

.j Now being a lead agency is fine, but there are 6{

really no teeth in this section.

It doesn't tell you what 1

7h powers you have.

i 8i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It's a lead agency for 9

i consideration of all applications made to the rederal 10 Government for a licensing and construction.

11 l

MR. STOIBER:

It's a little vague.

I'm not 12 exactly sure what they intended by that.

I 13 '

COMMISSI.ONER GILINSKY:

Principal hand-wringers.

I 14 i

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I guess the answer is we i

15 '

don't know what that means.

For examole, does it mean the 16 N,

j Corps of Engineers, or....

L 17 il

'1 MR. STOIBER:

It doesn't state anything about the I

18 !.

power to establish time-tables or anything.

I 19 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

By designation as a lead i

20 t agency, would that put us in a particular position with 21 respect to Executive Orders or laws that are currently cover-

'2 h.: ing EPA and CEQ?

li

'3 l'I MR. STOIBER:

We have not looked at that.

I

, s susrect there are -- there are court cases, of course, which 44 Tef st Aeoorters, Inc.

• 4

'~ ;I state what the role of the lead agency in the preparation of a

18 0

3 mpb17 I!!

NEPA statements are, and how other agencies, cooperating 2'

agencies ought to act with respect to those agencies.

And that sweeps that all.

I (IAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I wonder how one would read 5

"for consideration of all applications made to the Federal

,a 6

Government."

7 i Now it goes on to say "for a license for siting".

8' We can regard that as the applications -- not construction 9

and operating license applications, but I would think it 10 i

would not extend, for instance, to water quality or anvching 11 like that.

12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It says for siting.

13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, siting and licensing.

U COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Doesn't that get -- Will IS l that get water quality and all that other kind of stuff in 16 there?

II MR. STOIBER:

I think it's unclear.

I think we're I

I8 l going to have to do something else.

19 l CnAIRMAN HENDRIE:

We could always act as a mail-20 1 box, deliver on to the proper destination.

2I l Very interesting.

l' 22 l MR. STOIBER:

We have sent this out to the Staff

'l 23 h for their comments, and I assume we will be asked for reviews.

J I

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Probably more than that,

,a erst Recorrers, Inc.

m

• ~l because they said they intend to hold hearings.

3 1

J.

19

.I O

!i mpbl8 Ih MR. STOIBER:

Well, with that bit of new informa-2 tion, perhaps the best thing to do would be to proceed through 2

the draft to be submitted on the 14th, and answer any ques-

I 4/

tions.

5" Peter, why don't you run this through.

6 CHAIR N HENDRIE:

Before you start, Peter, let i

7l me comment for the benefit of the Commissioners Gilinsky and B i Kennedy, who have just come in, that I said because I think 1

9 Commissioner Bradford may not be here for a while, he may 10 not make the meeting at all, that my intent this afternoon 0

II l was to begin to go through this draft, understanding some 12 of the language in it, and the differences from previous 13 I

versions, and that the intent here is not to come immediately i

14 1 to decisions for and against particular prositions, but to try N

15 to understand and discuss the provisions.

t I

16 ';

Okay?

l,!

I7 h Peter.

a 18 MR. CRANE:

Well, I think rather than give you I

l9 ll the excuses in advance, I'll try to make ther

,t become

• 0 f necessary, and --

i 21 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I'd just try to bra::en it out, 22 j if I were you and say that's what we said last time.

I 23 lll (Laughter.)

i, 24 fl MR. CRANE:

I think we may just plod through the u

' erat Reco,ttes, Inc..

25 j draft starting with the findings and purposes.

)

'i li,

u 20

l li I

mpbl9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Good.

Charge ahead.

2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Could you tell me what's the general idea that you had in mind in putting together i

i!

4 l i

the findings and purposes?

What were you trying to lay out?

S' MR. CRANE:

We were trying to follow the previous 6'

draft to a great extent where there seemed to be provisions in 7l the act that accomplished some sort of change or put some-l 8!

thing in the findina? and purposes so that it would not come 9!

as a surprise, i

IO There would be some relation between the findings II and purposes and the latest actions.

And to some extent, to 12 ;

clean up the findings and purposes where --

i 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

So that the findings and 14 purposes should relate to the subsections that are set behind 15,;

it, i

16 j MR. CRANE:

More or less.

I'm not sure that h

i 17 !

they relate on a seven to seven basis, but --

IO COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Now I know that findings l

19 '

and purposes in general are for.

But I was trying to track l

,0 'l a different thread.

21 I was trying to track these findings and purposes 22 i

from what I thought had been said in meetings that led to this.

k 23 ll COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

That's a hard test.

i 24 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Okay.

Onward.

a eral Recorrers, Inc.

20 !

MR. CRANE:

Section (a) is the same as findings i

!l 8

21

.I N

il il I"

mpb20 and purposes (a) in the September 1977 draft with one excep-

'l tion:

The earlier draft said "must include an effective licensing process for nucles: power reactors which meet r

4 applicable safety and enviroamental criteria".

There seemed i

5 to be a suggestion in there that for those which do not meet 6,i applicable safety and environmental criteria, an ineffective 7!

licensing process would be adequate.

i 8

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Good.

MR. CRANE:

The reference to interstate commerce i

10 stays the same.

11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Why is it there?

12 l MR. CRANE:

I defer to the wisdom of my elders 4

13 l 1

who put it in in the 1977 draft.

l 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

And then why did they say 15 h j!

it was there?

,1 16 !!

i!

MR. CRANE:

I think that one of the ways in which l'

d 17 ll you get jurisdiction is to --

i 18 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Did you ask the elders why 19 l it was in there?

i MR. CRANE:

No, I didn't.

21 l MR. PARLER:

The only reason I can think of why i

n, ;

"l it was out there would be to give the broadest constitutional 1

23 !'l basis.

24 !!

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Well, I know why some elders A,

eral Reporters, Inc. l 2'* '

put it there.

It has been alluded in some quarters that the n

il

22 P

l l

=pb21 l !l reason it was there was to enable one to get out of a certain 2[

state-Federal Government relationship, and some of the 3

features of the bill which don't exist in what you have here.

4-And so I was just wondering why you wanted it there.

l 5

MR. BICKWIT:

I can tell you why we want it there:

6 Just to provide a constitutional basis for the statute.

7!

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Are you saying there is 8'

no constitutional basis for the Atomic Energy Act?

I 9

MR. BICKWIT:

No.

I 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Look in the beginning of the 11 Y Atomic Energy Act and see if you don't find something in there.

12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

My question.is, as it's i

I3 been pointed out in the beginning, we're adding sections to Id "

the Atomic Energy Act --

15 MR. BICKWIT:

This is not an addition to the 16 ',!

Atomic Energy Act.

I7 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I know.

We're making 18 ll additions to the Atomic Energy Act and we're amending the il 19 ;l Atomic Energy Act.

And knowing at least why that appeared in 20 !

some previous drafts of a year and a half or so ago, and not 21 l; having that reason I thought existent here --

Could you be f

3, i i

" 'l more explicit?

I 23ll sl MR. BICKWIT:

I think our reason is a statistic 0

24 reason.

v m.i s. corms. inc. l 2~5 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:

Well, I had heard in some h

d

'la

23 s

i 4

!l l'i I"

mpb22 places that the reason it was there was in order to give a 2'

federal agency the right to drive a state agency and all

~,

other federal agencies.

l

1. f MR. BICKWIT:

To drive?

5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Yes, in other words, to 6,1 have the control over in the process.

.l 7

MR. BICKWIT:

Well, you can specify in your

1 8

letter of transmittal that that's not the reason.

It is not 9'

the reason here.

10

(

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Would you state the reason here?

11 hl MR. BICKWIT:

The reason it is stated here is i

12 l that it is often chosen -- the findings are often chosen to I3 be included so that the express c onstitutional basis of the I

i 14 act is right up front when one reads it, and this is not an

Gd HENDRIE:

I don't want it dropped.

I 5'

think it's a good thing to have it in.

6 But I said -- you know, I didn't propose that i

7 we vote things up and down.

l 8 !

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

As long as we have a good

-l 9

reason, it's fine.

10 'l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Two?

11 '

MR. CRANE:

The second one also represents a 12 change.

The earlier version here is the same way in the NRC 13 bill and in HR 117, the administration bill.

I Id b It said:

15 "NRC should continue to exercise its 16 'i g

independent statutory responsibilities so as il I7 to protect the public health and safety and 18 the common defense and security, taking into I

19 account that absolute safety is an unattainable 20 j goal for any energy source, that the cost of 21 additional safety requirements should be 2' l given consideration, and that adequate protec-l 23 l tion to the health and safety of the public in i

24 "

c accordance with high standards established bv J

eral Reoorters. Inc. !

'S l'I the Commission is the paramount consideration."

l li l

N le

27 e

i!

mpb26 1P And I may have misunderstood something, but it 2'

seemed to me that there was something slightly amiss about 2

the order of those phrases.

As I understood what that d

4]!

passage meant, it meant that we are obligated to assure I

5?

adequate safety and that once that is done any incremental 6'

ratcheting beyond that point ought to be justified in terms 7

of its cost.

And this revised language --

i 3

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Juctify taking it into 9.i account as one of the factors of this cost.

10 i

MR. CRANE:

Right.

i II And this revised language tries to say that thought.

?

12)

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, this is a complicated 13 i question that we've never really dealt with, whether there I

Id is one absolute level that must be met, and beyond that cost I3f comes in, or whether cost comes in at all levels, or what, l

16 i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

If cost comes in at all li 17 levels, presumably it could be a negating factor at any level.

18 Do we take that as given?

I wouldn't think so.

1 I9 I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I guess I'd recommend to you l

20 l the commentary again in that in the cited memorandum from Peter 21 Strauss and Oursbach, I guess, in '76, where it noted that 22 !

because the Atomic Energy Act does not speak of absolute 23 protection, of ::ero ris.', it speaks of adequate protection 24 j and no undue risk and reasonable assurance, and various language u

er seoorters, inc.

25 -

like that, that in spite of the fact that it doesn't spell it i

3

I 6

28

'hl I

mpb27 1I out in detail, there is clearly some judgment to be made 2/

by the body setting the regulations that would implement what 2'

adequate protection made, and the authors of that memorandum 4

concluded inevitably that there was some sort of a balancing 5l that must go on.

l 6

In principle one can improve safety at progress-l 7l ively larger cost, and that that has not been required.

And 8I so some sort of balancing must go on.

So the Shapar-Strauss--

9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Not at the point where the 10 decision of adequacy is reached.

II CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, in the following sense, i

12 yes, Dick, the Strauss-Shapar memorandum judges that the cost i

13 in practicality of particular design features, for safety 14 I features, is a factor to be considered in setting the regula-I 15 l tory standards and the rules anc prescriptions on a generic 16 !

basis.

lI I7 i But when you come to a particular case, why, it's la not so clear that you sit there and say, Well, it will cost 19 !

another $1000 for this or that.

l 20 i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

No.

21 l What I was getting at is that there is some 22 li threshold below which you do not take the cost consideration 23 ]linto account.

That is, one has to assert that adequate safety i

24 1 has been achieved.

• e teral Reporters, Inc. '

25 Now, you can increase safety, and the question is 3

0

29

,i II O

mpb28 1'

is it worth doing.

And here, you know, there's a whole host 2

of consideration at that point.

But you can't say no, I 2

will lower.the adequacy level because it cost too must, can 1

4 you?

l.

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, it seems to me that 6 'l i

this is a nice model.

If you had one variable and you could 7:

draw a line and say We're going to require safety up to this 8-point and from then on it's as low as practical.

I 91 3

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It's not that way.

10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

In reality you are deal-1 II ing with hundreds and thousands of variables.

It's a i

12 complicated problem, it's very hard to define what that 13 level is and what all that adds up to.

I 14 In practice you take over some accumulation of 15 '

requirements and I guess in practice add to it.

I 16 ',

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

This could be a fascinat-il 17 "

ing discussion, but it doesn't really relate to the bill that I

18 '

we have.

I 19 !

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

You're saying we don't 20 need to get into that.

21 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Well, we may, but it's a i

22 ]

different issue.

Il 23 !I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, but if you start il 24 laying out the findings --

erai Recorms, inc. ]

a 25 -

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

This finding has little, if d

i la

30

-i II ll mpb29 1'

anything, to do with these features.

2l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

-- you do get into these 2l features.

4:

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Right..And it's a questien 1

5 which I think that the memo that Len distributed begins to get 6'

at, and it's one that perhaps might be appropriate for us to 7;

talk about again before we submit legislation.

8; But what we're finding I think at this moment is 9

that by going through the findings and purposes and focusing 10 ;

upon them to start with, we've got it backwards from the II normal way I think you construct a bill.

You look at what 12 are you -- the piece of legislation that you're going to 13 propose --

14 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Yes.

I 15 !

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

-- and then after you've 16 j

decided that this is what you're going to do, then you construct p

17 the findings and purposes to meet that.

18 And I think the:. point that you and Dick were 19 l beginning to discuss is a very important one; it just doesn't 20 '

happen at the moment to be represented in one of the pieces t

21 l of legislation that are being proposed.

I don't think the i

22 ll finding has much to do with the piece of legislation that's

!l 23 j being proposed.

24 0 MR. BICKWIT:

Well, it's there for two reasons.

e ser.i neoorms. inc.

25 One, it was there in the previcus bill.

2 31 mpb30 Il And secondly, so that you could have this i

2 discussion.

It flags matters which are very much before the Commission, d

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

You're saying, then, that 1

5 there ought to be another piece of legislau__.1.

6 MR. BICKWIT:

I'm not saying --

7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

The finding really relates-8 to the question of absolute safety, in other words, dealing 9

with that explicitly.

I 10 '

And we agreed --

II COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

But, Vic, a lot of those 12 findings that get carried through into what you proposed and 13 were massaged out of -- to go on top of the administration's I4 bill had an entirely different bill that they were sitting 15 on top of.

16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Yes, but my recollection I7 was that --

18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I don't think it's that differ-I9 ent.

20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

-- we didn't focus this 21 at any particular piece of any of those bills that we were 22 then looking at.

23 This was a sort of a general conception to under-2# lI lay the whole licensing regime to which the bill was address-

,a mi neoomn. inc.,

25 ing itself.

i

32 l

I

=pb31 Is that your feeling?

2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

But we're addressing a i

3 !!

much broader whole licensing regime at that time.

I d

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

But we still are, because j

5I we're amending those pieces of the act which reflect the 6

basic licensing regime.

It's not only what's here, but all 7!

the rest of those sections of the act to which this has been l

8 addressing itself.

9!

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Are you saying you would I

10 '

want this, set of findings and purposes embedded someplace II in the act?

I2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let me make some comments 13 along the line.

Id First of all, the original form of this finding 15 in the September '77 draft was placed there by the Commission 16 to reflect what in fact was the real case in the -- what I'll 17 call the regulatory philosophy as regards safety.

18 It seemed at the time to us to be more than we l' I would want to tackle, I guess, to amplify it in terms of I

20 l subsequent detailed sections of the bill.

But there was a i

21 feeling which was unanimous, I think, among the four of us who.

22 ll were working on it that a reflection of what was indeed the l

23 j real world of nuclear regulatory safety philosophy was a very 24 hluseful thing and a very appropriate thing to have in.

tral Reoorters, Inc. l e

25 And I continue to feel this way, whether or not t

33 I

I mpb32 I

there would be further amplification of the bill at any 2

point.

3, Now, having said that, let me go ahead and add 4

some other thoughts which I've talked about some to Len and 3

o thers.

6 I think that it would be very useful if we l

7' could have some discussion, try some draft language, and 8

see where we come out on a possible subsequent section in 9:;

the bill which would deal with the question of what adequate i

10 '

protection means, and try to provide a little better statu-II tory definition of that standard.

I think it would be a highly useful thing.

Whether the enterprise would be 12 13 successful here amongst us and then subsequently a presenta-Id tion is -- I can't guess.

15 But I think it would be a very useful enterprise 16 to attempt.Because it would certainly involve a good deal 57 more discussion than I think a number of us would like to 18 have to go through before anything moves here, I,

however, 19 I would not propose -- votes could be mustered to send this 20 forward, I would not propose to delay that in order to have 21 the other piece, but rather to note to our Committees that 22 l we're settling down to try to look at the possibility of a 23 !

further section.

l 2d ;

But in any case, as I say, whether that is attempt-

s

• rst Reoorters, Inc.

25,

ed, and if attemptad whether successful, whether or not any of I

I i

I

34 1

I mpb33 that occurs, it does seem to me that the phrasing here,which l

nH I think Peter has done useful editorial rearranging and 3

amplification to make clear, is a very useful recognition I

of the real world of nuclear safety regulatory philosophy e'!

and is not only perfectly appropriate, but I think very much I

6!

needed.

7 Now whether or not we get any bill out of the 8

whole thing, of course, you know, views differ, and that i

9l remains to be seen.

But if we were, I think it would be 1

10 '

an enormously valueable thing to have.

11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

So are you saying that I2 you think that this kind of language would be necessary in I3 order to hold a place for that additional section?

l#

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

No, I don't think it would be 15 necessary to hold a place for such a section, John,because 16 when you came with that section you could also come with a I7 proposed finding to go in the front end, or if the bill had 18 already either passed or failed, why it might be a separate l' I little legislative proposal of its own.

20 No, I don't think that's the essential.

I think i

21 that the reason that it's appropriate here in just this 22 language. -- never mind whether a new section gets added -- is 23 to reflect, as I say, that real world of practice, which is 24 ;

not otherwise reflected anyplace in the starute, I don't

s nei neoomn. inc.,

25 l think.

35 I

mpb34 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, as I remember, we 2

were trying to deal with the fact that the agency does take f

3 cost into account in some of its decision.

At the same time I

d' there 2.s a kind of feeling that this was done in a sort of 5

under-the-table manner, or that the law didn 't explicitly 6

allow for it --

7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

And this is to --

8 COMMISSIONER GILINSFY:

-- in a sense bringing 9

practice and legislation into at least more manifest congru-10 '

ents.

II But 41so I think we didn't want to suggest that 12 we were in any way backing away from current requirements, and.

13 that's where all the paramount language is.

I Id COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That's right.

We discussed 15 trying to find precisely the word and decided on paramount 16 for that reason.

I7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

The impression I get from 18 the way it's worded is that you first set up adequate health D

and safety standards and ths.t everything is required to meet 20 an adequate standard to provide adequate health and safety.

II Deyond that, the Commission may then require even more, 22 beyond what is --

23 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, I was concerned 2# !

about that formulation when we became more explicit with nos neoonm. snc. ;

en 25 l Peter's changes.

36 i

l I

mpb35 I don't know that it was -- that it had that 2

explicit a model.

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

As a matter of fact, I don't t

4' recall a discussion or Just this point.

Si COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

There were two points 6 I basically:

i 7'

One, that cost is an allowable consideration; and 8i the other was that safety was paramount, that we weren't I

i 9

backing away --

10 '

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I cnn understand both of Il those.

I2 The part that I'm puzzling over is the part that 13 really says cost is a factor considered in evaluating addit-14 ional requirements.beyond those that are required for guidance 15 in the section that refers to adequate.

i 16 So it has inherent that we then consider, after 17 having established what is adequate and require them to meet 18 those, that we then look at making additional requirements on I9 them beyond what is adequate.

20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Peter, could you read what 21 we had before?

22 I MR. CRANE:

"The Nuclear Regulatory t

23 h Commission should continue to exercise its 2d responsibilities...taking into account that er eral Reoorters. Inc.

23 absolute safety is an unattainable goal for l

37 I

mpb36 any energy source, that the costs of additional 1

• li l

safety requirements should be given consideration, 3 ~

and that adequate protection of the health and d.

1. l safety of the public in accordance with high 5

standards established by the Commission is the 6l paramount consideration."

l 7

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

It doesn't get into 8

the problems of this version.

9!

I guess I would stick with the older one.

10 '

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

But does it not get into 11 them because they were there and they just didn't come into I2 l

focus as Peter put them into focus, or --

13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

It slips by.

I4 (Laughter.)

I MR. STOIBER:

And that phraseology " additional" 16 does not modify it; it's just there.

I7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Yes.

18 '

MR. STOIBER:

And one wonders, if they ask the I9 '

question, what will the answer be.

20 MR. BICKWIT:

Additional to anything, I think that's 21 what that means, additional to anything.

And that is a diff-22 erent formulation from the one we now have.

I 23 l MR. CRANE:

And that leaves open, for example, if 6

24 '

you assume that for any new safety requirement you evaluate

=

er.i n.conen. inc.

25 j cost, what about when you reevaluate an old requirement.

l 1

38 I

mpb37 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, as the lawyers say,

'l 2h we do not write today on a blank slate.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I haven't focused on that 5

business.

You're right.

6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It seems to me that --

7l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

That will require some I

8' mulling, I guess, before I decide between the new one or the 9

old one.

10 '

MR. BICKWIT:

The new one is different from the II Strauss-Shapar method.

I2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

No, when I say the old I3 one I mean the '77 draft.

Id MR. BICKWIT:

I understand.

But just to point out that this particular draft 16 takes the position, as Commissioner Kennedy was outlining, 17 that there is a level below which cost is not relevant.

18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Whatever it is, it's that l9 standard which we judge based upon the high standards that 20 :

we've established to provide adequate protection.

2I MR. BICKWIT:

You call that adeqtata protection.

i 22'l In the Strauss-Shapar memo, adequate protection is determined 23 with regard to cost.

l 24 [

CC!'MISSIONER GILINSKY:

I'm more inclined to that oral Reoorters, Inc. ;

,es 25 i view because if in fact that minimum level o.rovides adec.uate o

39 i

I mpb38 protection, then why are we going beyond it?

2[

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

That's the problem that stuck out.

1

1. l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I could rationalize that.

5 It is true, for example, simplistic view, it 6-was judged when the-first DC-3 airplane came off the line 1

7k back in 1940, I guess, and maybe a little bit earlier,

'39, l

8

maybe,

'40, that that airplane met whatever the standards 9

were for adequate safety and protection of the life and 10 property involved.

That's a rather different airplane than 11 the DC-3 model X that came off the line in 1946 or

'47.

12 No one ever said you've got to take that earlier I3 DC-3 out of the sky.

It adequately met safety standards.

Id That doesn't go to say that if you find another 15 '

way later to even improve that situation, you ought not to 16 do it.

What it does say is you don't have to go back and I7 rebuild e.erything else.

O COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, but it may turn 19 1 out that the wings are weaker than you thought on the old

• 0 l

one, i

2I !

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

And then you make the 22 '

determination whether it's so weak indeed that you ought l

23 l to go back and fix it, or that it's still, even though 24 '

they're weaker than you would now build the new ones, they're

s tral Reoorters, Inc.

'S still going to fly.

i L

40 N

I mpb39 I

l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Dick, I think you're i

2 !!

arguing an opposite case, the way it actually ends up.

I d

3{

think the examples you're using are much more towards the 4

end balancing of how much safety for 1.ow much money.

5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Above a certain threshold I

6l where you have said, yes, that's adequate safety.

i 7

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

The trouble is, it's hard f

8 to find that threshold.

9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Sure.

That's right.

The 10 !

first one that comes along presents you with that problem.

II COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I don't understand the 12 finding.

I3 MR. STOIBER:

I should note that Senator McClure I

Id has asked you precisely this question, and he also stated 15 that he didn't necessarily want a draft statute to cure it, 16 but he would like you to comment upon it.

This was in the 17 '

appropriation hearings on the Senate side.

18 So you will have an opportunity to visit this l9 issue in that response.

20 MR. SICKNIT:

A lot of people are asking that.

21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

A lot of people were asking 22 this, as I remember, back in January, 1975, pretty early on.

23 l MR. CRANE:

To your questions, Mr. Gilinsky, it i

2d i

seems to me in 1975 the Commission adooted at es tral Recorters, Iric.

least on an 25 interim basis a $1 per man-rem rule.

It was later abandoned.

l s

I 1

u 41 I

mpb40 But that was an attempt to quantify how much additional safety 1

2 lN requirements above adequacy are worth.

,*l How do you determine the cost-effectiveness?

l 4

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

I don't think it was 5I adequacy.

It was simply a rule for arriving at a require-6-

ment, and the fact that you start with a certain level doesn't, l

7 mean that that level is adequate and the rest of it is just i

8 icing on the cake.

l 9

You know, the rule has two components:

it he s a I

10 constant plus a times something.

I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think that one may have 12 had a little more helpful context.

The Commission's regula-13 tions before that and after, I don't know, about '70 or '72 Id or

'-3 or soma. thing like that, said exposures are -- this 15 l was with regard to personnel exposures and exposures to the 16 public.

17 It said they will be below a certain icvel set 18 in tables in Part 20 and so on, and beyond that were to be 19 kept as low, in those days, as low as practicable, now as I

'O low as reasonably achievable.

And the rulemaking was to 21 decide on what basis you would establish a particular set 2 !

of equipment which represented as low as reasonably achievable I

23 or as low as practicable at the time.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

But that was above the a

ral Reoorters. Inc.

25 '

threshold.

i

42 I

mpb41 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, you had to get down to i

.i 2[

the Part 20 limits, certainly, but beyond that --

,,I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Eut cost is not a question.

~

i, 4'l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, but the Part 20 limit --

5 Well, as a practical matter, the Part 20 limits were pretty 6

well up, at least with regard to the general public.

Why 7

you really had to run a pretty dirty plant to impinge on them.

8 The question was, you know, whether it's going to 9!

be 20 million millirem at the boundary per year or five or 10 '

three or two or one, or something like that.

And in Part 20 11 it was 170.

And the rulemaking ended up saying well you keep 12 on adding equipment until the cost gets up to $1000 per i

13 man-rem.

l#

And at that point you're putting in enough stuff 15 and boy, that's as low as is reasonably achievable.

And 16 there's been argument since about whether the dollar figure 17 was too high or too low.

IO MR. KENNEKE:

It's been irrelevant, in fact, 19 1 because the number was chosen ostensibly on a cost-benefit l

,0 !

basis, but it has never been found to be overridden by the 21 S1000 per man-rem figure.

So one night argue that the 22 i

previous set was supposedly set on a cost-benefit basis, and l

23 in fact it was not.

It was overly done.

t 24 'i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Isn't it correct that when

n tral Reoorters, Inc.,

25 we decided on the $1000 figure we recognized that to be the

43 I

mpb42 upper figure of all the data that we got, that was the top 2[

number?

We just selected it for overconservatism, isn't that right?

i I

And so obviously --

5!

MR. KENNEKE:

While the purpose may be different, I

6!

it does seem to be a perfectly analogous situation.

If you 7

have the situation, you're establishing a ceiling on risk I

8 and you're reducing the ceiling below that based on the cost-9l benefit impact value assessment kind of approach.

10 '

Even though the terms are difficult to define, it 11 does seem to me that that's in fact what we do.

And we ought 12 to recognize this and differentiate the two situations of 10 one that says Yes, we do require safety regardless of cost Id up to a point, and we'll even go beyond that if we can 15 :

justify it in economic cost-benefit terms.

0 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, but, first of all, the I7 single number that you start with is not chosen irrespective I8 of cost.

There's a cost consider.ition that enters into that 19 one.

i I

20 !

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, that's what the Shapar-21 Strauss memorandum says, that in establishing those generally 22 establishable standards they believe that practicality and 23 cost are legitimate considerations, obviously not controlling, 2# l but considerations.

a na Rwornes. fM.

25 l MR. KENNEKE:

That's not to say there isn't an i

I I

l l

u 44 t

I I

mpb43 element in that, I agree.

'n l'

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

The other point about i

this examole it seems to me is that you're dealing with i

4 essentially one dimension here.

In other words, it's 5'

relatively simple to apply the sorts of models.

6 MR. KENNEKE:

It's difficult to express.

How do 7

we do it?

It's not a simple thing like $1000 per man-rem to i

8 deal with a broad range of regulatory problems.

But concept-9 ually it's there --

l 10 !

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

All of this would be II helpful if in fact WASH-1400 could be done in a way that 12 your errors were so small that you could just regulate on 13 the basis of it.

And, you know, then you could just say --

I#

MR. KENNEKE:

But we can do, even with the 15 industry bounding analyses, that we do use those to take 16 into account the range of uncertainties, and use those in a I7 I comparable way.

18 But you do have to have something that says there's a level of safety that we don't bother to analyze.

It't fixed; 20 l it's required; and we shouldn't even spend our time trying to 21 analyze it without saying that we will not require still more i

22 ll i

review, but in a much more explicit and justified way, t

23 !

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

Well, but what I'm saying l

24 '

is that all of that is an element when you are e:; pressing ca eral Reoorters, Inc.

25 t what adequate --

I

45 I

mpb44 MR. KENNEKE:

Yes, true.

I 2

CHAIMIAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

4 3;

MR. KENNEKE:

Both elements.

4 MR. BICKWIT:

Mr. Chairman, I think the threshold 5

question is whether you want to confront this issue in this 6 I legislation.

7 CHAIM1AN HENDRIE:

I certainly think we need at 8

least a finding of the '77 version and the '79 version.

We 9

have a bit of a head-scratcher between them at the moment.

10 '

But I think -- and I think the question of going II on, trying to work out -- if this Commission decides something 12 l we don't like, we'll just veto it.

13 (Laughter.)

i I4 We're closer to the Reporter, so we get on the 15 '

transcript and they don't, so don't worry about what they 16 say.

I7 (Laughter.)

IO COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

We may be on the wrong I9 I subject for this afterncon anyway.

20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

We're just about to reach 21 a conclusion on adequate and inadequate, but it's lost.

22l (Laughter.)

23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

We saved the diagram.

I 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I'll have to pu :le through that,

= e4 Reoorters, Inc. i a

u; "l

Look, I think we need something like this in here, I

l

46 I

mpb45 and the exact language we're going to have to argue about.

2 I recommend that as soon as the Commissioners get

,b a chance, they make commentary on it briefly, and we make it to each other in the Counsel's Office.

And as we gather 5l again we'll focus in and make decisions on the matter.

I i

6' Why don't we scan on forward through the findings 7

I section to see what else we've got in here?

I 8

MR. BICKWIT:

Mr. Chairman, just one further ques-9 tion.

10 '

This is so basic to what you're doing and what 11 the Commission is doing and what the Congress is focusing on, 12 I think the Commission ought to consider the option of whether.,

13 they want to go with a finding like this or whether they Id want to leave it out and deal with it in a separate package, 15.

or whether they want to address it more directly by a 0

section of the Atomic Energy Act, 17 There are really three options.

Depending on how 18 you go, I think this bill will look very different.

And I I' I think it would be useful to have some guidance.

20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Particularly in the context 21 of the high congressional interest with respect to the closing, 22l the shutdown of the plants.

This kind of a finding obviously 23 l l

directly impacts upon whether we conclude as our -- quote --

24 h philosophy or our flexibility and our operating policy.

And cz eral Reoorters, Inc.

25 '

I think we've got to address it more directly than just putting r

l

47

i I

mpb46 it in a finding.

2l So I would go for a discussion of your third n.

option.

MR. BICKWIT:

Which was that?

I 5

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

That was a separate section.

6 In other words, I would go for a discussion of i

7 what that section should look like if there were to be one.

8 But it's an issue I think that ought to be addressed directly.

9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think if you're willing, I 10 !

have some thoughts on the general shape of it, and I could 11 talk to Counsel and we could have some rough draft things to 12 argue over to provide at least a kicking off of that discus-I3 sion.

i 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

As a working basis for the 15 i

disc mion, that would be fine.

16 At that discussion we.would have to address the I7 kinds of questions that were raised in the Sha, par-Strauss.

18 memo.

19 l (Commissioner Gilinsky departed at 3:10.)

20 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Or prov.de some reasonable i

21 compatibility if one judges that that memo reflects in fact 22 the practice that's going on.

23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Well, I thought rather than 24 reflecting the practices early, the practice, I thought it was o

nei m.oorters, inc.,

25 ;

i raising possible interpratations of operating philosophy.

l l

i.

48 I

mpb47 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Tt seemed to me it was rtflect-2 ing practice in fact.

i,d COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

You would know that becter i

1. l than I.

5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Wel1....

6 MR. KENNEKE:

It reflects a point of view that 7!

ELD takes a fairly regular occasion to point out, that you're l

8l on weak legal ground when you take economics into account.

9 MR. PARLER:

I think that has. been true since the l

10 '

first major interpretation of the Atomic Energy Act by the 11 Supreme Court in the PRDC decision, which ceriainly suggested 12 at least to this lawyer that if you took economics into 13 account to do less than was required in the judgment of the Id Commission to be done, provide adequate protection to the 15 '

health and safety of the public, it was questionable whether 6

such legal authority cristed under the present law.

I7 CHAIRMAN HENLRIE:

I don't think the Strauss-Shapar 18 document argues that in fact you should do that.

I 19 MR. PARLER:

I do:.'t so interpret it, Mr. Chairman.

20 !

CHAIRMAN HENDLIE:

It seems to me that it says 21 only that in establishing the rules, regulations, and Staff 22

' practices..lat constitute our judgment of adequate protection 23 !

that inevitably and properly under the Act there are questions 1

24 '

of practicality and cost that enter into those judgments, and n e Recomn anc. ;

ce 25 that that is not an inappropriate or unlawful proposition.

h I

49 I

mpb48 Now when you get down to dealing with na specific

, j!

',I case against those regulations, why then I think we've always

,1 pretty well held the view that you had to meet the regulations, I

4 and if that was expensive, why that was tough.

5 In fact, we had, as I remember -- was it the 6

appeal board in Maine Yankee that ?.hrew some language in 7

which said we could....

8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Kell, even there I think 9

the point of view you expressed is basically what is done, 10 l and I think it's basically the right thing to do.

And then II there's a hierarchy of decisions, and there are points at 12 which it's more appropriate to consider costs and others 13 where it's less appropriate to consider costs.

Id And as you work your way toward specific cases 15 or enforcement actions, it's less appropriate.

16 On the other hand, you know, exemptions have been I7 granted from ECCS criteria, and it seems to me that cost has I8 been a consideration, given the size of the reactor and possible U

harm, and the cost of meeting these criteria, all these things 20 l entered into the decision.

2I (Commissioner Bradford arrived at 3:20.)

22 :

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

The question really is l

23 was cost taken inte account in your determination of whether 24 an adequate level of safety was being assurred.

That's the

=

tre mecarters, inc.

2"*

real question.

l i

I

50 I

mpb49 And it seems to me the answer can't be yes.

I 2

don't see hcw it could be, because that would imply that you could ccme down ultimately to a point where, as my I

d colleague and I were discussing with the chart, you know, one 5

can run a, you know, a sort of a spectrum of adequacy from, 6

you know, fantastically adequate to barely adequate.

But 7'

below barely adequate it gets to be inadequate at some point.

8 And conceivably you could drive yourself with cost down to 9

that, at least to that inadequate level, and if cost gets 10 '

so high on that rationale you might even lower the level and 11 say what we thought was inadequate really probably was adequate 12 given cost considerations.

i 13 And I don't think one can rationally do that.

Id That's the problem.

15 CHAIR &VI HENDRIE:

Isn't it also true that in 16 granting an exemption to regulations one is not granting an I7 exemption from the requirement that there be adequate protec-18 tion of the public hea.' -h.

That's in a statute and I don't I9 '

think it's within the Commission's power.

20 So when you grant an exemption the finding you 21 make to put it in sort of engineer's terms is we think tha l

22 this plant needn't meet the particular regulation that says 23 microphones have to have this shape; we think in this particu-24 '

lar case there is adequate protection even though their micro-a e,.i n.oonm. inc.,

25 phones are square, or whatever.

Indeed, the square microphones I

f

51 mpb50 1

don't meet the general regulations, but even without that 2 hl there is still adequate protection.

We find good cause to 3 {I I

i allow this exemption.

4 I don't think you give away that statutory --

5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Well, but is that because 6!

you conclude that your original regulation --

l i

7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Was above that level?

8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Yes.

9' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Possibly.

I think that's 10 '

possible, or that there are other ways to get there.

II COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Or that in balancing the 12 cost of getting there one concluded that you could, in Dick's.

13 spectrum, that while the other was perhaps a little more to-Id ward the higher end of adequacy and you could backoff a 15 little bit toward the lower end of adequacy -- still adequate 16

-- but back down beenuse of the cost.

I7 MR. KENNEKE:

More likely it was that it just 18 didn't fit those circumstances.

You could not anticipate all l9 possible circumstances, and what you're looking for is an 20 !

equivalent degree.

2I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That's a di!!ferent dimen-22 sion all together.

I 23 MR. KENNEKE:

Yes.

24 I would hate to think that we would be saying tral Reoorters, Inc. j

.cs 25 -

that not meeting the regulations -- meeting the regulations is i

l 1

1.

52 mpb51 Id more than adequate.

Certainly they define a level, and your n

2h decision to grant an exemption from that ought to be on the 0*l e:

basis that you're providing some other equivalent for raising g

i 4'

to tnat level.

i 5

Reg Guides, yes; in most cases Reg Guides go --

6 well, not most cases -- they're the places where you go beyond,

7 the regulations, choosing the Staff's option they go beyond 8

what literally needs to be done.

9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

All of this would be 10 '

relevant if in fact you could in some precise way define 11 what all these levels are.

12 Now I can't believe that if the failure to grant 13 exemption in a number of these cases would have zero cost ~

Id attached to it or trivial cost, then the exemptions would 15 have been granted.

16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Your description implies, I

I7 or at least I infer an ability to make a precision -- a precise 18 engineering or technical calculation with almost no uncertainty 19 to it.

20 l MR. KENNEKE:

I think you're still relying on 21 judgment, that you have something that provides a comparable 22 if you want to call it comparable to express a band of 23 l uncertainty, but surely n6t something that fundamentally is 24l1 different.

minemenm.ine.;;

.a 25 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Well, no, not fundamentally I

53 mpb52 1

different, but I would suspect that the comparability that 1;

2 you talk about ends up being pretty --

3 MR. KENNEKE:

It's imprecise.

4 4!

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Right.

And it could mean 1

5 that there's a band around that which than falls back, so 6

therefore you end up having a cost balancing on some of I

I 7

those.

Or if it's not cost-balancing it's practicality I

8 balancing.

9 MR. KENNEKE:

Well, if you're uncertain in the 10 '

lows cireccion, I believe you'd turn around and back up that II uncertainty with some other kind of requirement, so that you 12 will backup to something with which you comfortable with 13 !

t the band of uncertainty being on the right side.

I Id I think that's a general principle in practice.

15 Bounding analyses is typical regulatory practice.

If you 16 don't know, guess on the high side, or whichever side is 17 more conservative.

18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let me suggest we go ahead 19 I and scan through the rest of the findings quickly.

20 l MR. BICKWIT:

And we will produce a draft, you say?

2I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let's have a chat and see if 22 we can get some directions to get started on drafts.

23 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

With some trepidation, 24 l let me ask how far you've got.

a r i necemn. inc. ;

25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Not far enough.

l i

l l

I

u

~

54 I

mpb53 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

We're arguing over the i

2h transmittal letter.

The bill is all set.

l 3l (Laughter.)

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

We had some considerable 5

discussion, Peter, over the words at the beginning of the page.

6!

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

To amend the Atomic l

7 Energy Act?

8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDi':

No, no -- or the bill.

l 9

(Laughter.)

10 !

MR. CRANE:

Number three, and here I amend my 11 previous answer to Commissioner Ahearne.

This doesn't track 12 anything in the bill.

This came from something in the l.

I3 discussions in which, if I remember correctly --

I#

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

You certainly answered my I0 question.

16 MR. CRANE: Since there is not going to be anything.

I7 in there about the states, there was some suggestion that a I8 certain amount of pleasant temperate language indicating our 19 high regard for the states and their important role might~.be 20 appropriate.

2I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I would think that would 22 better go in a transmittal letter to indicate our high regard,,

23 but....

24 !

It's a very good finding.

I certainly agree with a

eral Reoorters inc.,

25 it, but it just doesn't have anything to do with the bill.

i l

l

55 mpb54 I

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It recognizes a fact of Il 2

life which will make the bill either workable or unworkable.

2l To that extent, it has something to do with the bill.

l 4l MR. CRANE:

Mr. Parler pointed out that the words 5

"and licensing" in there might create some incorrect message.

6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

At least as presently framed.

7 MR. CRANE:

Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Previously when we had the NEPA:

9!

transfer section in there -- Let's see, what are we doing i

10 '

here about need for power?

It doesn't go to the states here, II does it?

I2 MR. CRANE:

No, except with regard to the interim 13 operating license where we were asked to come up with some-Id thing to bring the certification of need from the states.

15 MR. PARLER:

It seemed to me that the words "and 16 licensing" would open the door completely as far as the state 17 roles in the radiological determination.

That's why I raised 18 the question.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

It's a good question.

• 0 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Once again the problem of making a finding that dtesn't link to....

21 22 MR. CRANE:

And that could be cured simply by 23 dropping out the words "and licensing".

2#

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I think that's a large step ce erei Aeoorters, ine..

25 !

forward.

i t

56 I

mpb55 t

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

A gem of an idea.

I 2l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I've never had any I

7 i objection to state involvement in the radiological end of I

things, so....

Si (Laughter.)

6' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Why don't we scan forward.

7 Peter, as I've told everybody else as they've 8

come in over time, why, my aim was to try to discuss some 9

of the things in this draft and move across it looking at 10 !

some of the things rather than to make decisions as we go 11 along.

In part that was because I was not at all sure I 12 would have very many of you here.

John and I started out.

13 But we've built up to a full Commission.

Id MR. CRANE:

The fourth one, I gather that there 15 was a skit of --

16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Where does that section, by I7 the way, come from, the federal coordination?

18 MR. CRANE:

For that -- where did Mark go?

I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, he went for the door.

20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Didn't it have a genesis 2I in the original administration?

22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I mean as far as our 23 1 administration.

I didn't recall us --

l 2# !

MR. BICKWIT:

We deliberated on coordination and

.a ersa Reoorters, Inc.,

m we came to no conclusion.

That's whv this is bracketed as a r

57 I

mpb56 section here.

I 2f MR. STOIBER:

The tone of the discussion was if 3l there were a federci coordination section, NRC ought to be the I

1. l federal coordinator.

If there were not, then....

5 MR. CRANE:

This was discussed in the January 23rd, 6

meeting.

It appears in the transcript at about page 55.

7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

And what was the conclusion?

8 MR. CRANE:

And according to -- yes, the Chairman 9

expressed the view that language similar to that proposed last 10 '

year would be sufficient to begin legislative support for 11 NRC's efforts to coordinate timely federal action.

Commissioners 12 Kennedy and Gilinsky noted preference for expression of 13 support for timely coordination in the hearing record and l#

perhaps the findiags and purposes section.

15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

All right.

It's you guys.

6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

We're well known to favor 17 basically good, sound government.

That was just an expression 18 to that principle.

Coordination among federal agencies is 19 l useful, and so little achieved.

20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Let's see.

Now tell me once 21 again -- as my attention wanders my mind grows mushy, and it's 22 only Tuesday.

It is Tuesday?

It is Tuesday.

23 There is or is not a coordination section?

24 MR. CRANE:

I believe there is a coordination ce ital Recorters. Inc.,

25 section.

I c

58 I

mpb57 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

It is the third section

,I 2!

on page 7.

I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

4l' Anything else?

Can we plunge forward?

S' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Does it say there that 6

they don't have the authority we do now?

I mean, we set a 7

schedule for our proceedings now.

?

8 MR. BICKWIT:

They set a time limit for other 9

agencies involved in the process.

10 !

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

But do we have the author-11 ity to do that?

I2 MR. BICKWIT:

To set time limits?

I3 COMMISSIONER BRADFCRD:

Besides to say that the I#

hearing will be held on such and such a day.

15 MR. BICKWIT:

Oh, no time limits for other 16 agencies.

I7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

But it seems to me, 18 working backward from our power to set a hearing date, we 19 l must also have the power to establish deadlines.

20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

It tells us to establish 21 dates for others.

22 'I MR. BICKWIT:

For an EPA determination, for 23 !

instance.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Oh, you mean, for example,

,c eral Reoorters, Inc.1 2'5 l

in Seabrook the determination for cooling towers would be a ll i

il

59 I

mpb58 determination --

2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Ne can't require them.

CHAIPJfAN HENDRIE:

It's a hunting license for i

1. l jobs is what it is.

All of these sections down through the I

5 earliest ones, none of them have ever contemplated the 6

enormous complexity of commanding people in view of all the 1

7 statutes they operate under or anything else.

But they have 8l been a -- I've always regarded them as a useful license to 9

jawbone, and useful in the sense that if you don't have I

10 '

anything like that, why you might very well get told, not 11 even very politely, to go mind your own business.

12 This at least allows the director of licensing to 13 regulation to write letters saying

Dear Agency,

I call to your I#

attention that pursuant to such and such Section....

15 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Let's see.

To the extent 0

that this involves a determination that isn' t involved, that I7 isn't a part of our own proceeding, such as the cooling 18 towers, presumably the setting of that deadline in a fair way 19 1 is going to involve having some appreciation of what's involv-aO j i

ed in the task --

i 2I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

On the other agency's part to

'2 I

be sure.

l t

23 ll COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

So that for us to write 2s i' a letter to the Historic Site Preservation Commission or n.n.conm.inc.j ce 2~5 '

whatever would involve somebody going out and spending some i

l l

I

60 I

mpb59 time learning what their task was.

2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

We do that now.

3; Part of the project management task is to under-l 4'

i stand the things that the people have to do and is there I

Sl anything we can do to he. i, and try to take into account in l

6 our plans when they can act and so on.

And I think all the 7

coordination authority, whether it's -- al] it does is say l

8 you ought to put these schedules together and try to 9

coordinate, and it gives us, as I say, a license to jawbone 10 !

when they run late.

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Have we tried to do it?

i I2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

The Staff doesn'u 13 hesitate to call up.

But as the project manager calling a I

Id lower level staff or EPA or whatever to say couldn't you get 15 that out, no, we've got to work on something else.

I0 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Well, what I'm asking is I7 have you tried to do what this bill is saying we should do 18 a.nd found that we didn't get anywhere?

l9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

One of the three examples 20 we give when scme congressman says what projects in the 21 past would lead you to think that this provision is needed.

22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

I could write you up a 23 whole flock of them.

24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE.

I've been trying patiently

.est Recorters, its ;

cs 25 from the beginning of January to get these kinds of examples i

61 i

mob 60 Il for each of the orovisions we're cuttinc in, and I have not h

2 got them.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Make a note and just call

~

I up Harold Denton.

And I think he can probaL1.y give you a 5!

do::en of these.

I've been hearing about them since 1975 with 6

constant regularity.

7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

But there's a difference 8

between hearing about somebody who has been holding a hear-9l ing and we're waiting for their result and we haven't told 10 '

them how that impacts on us from this kind of a procedure.

11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That's right.

But I don't 12 think that's the case, that in fact thay have tried very hard I3 to press on on people.

Because of the press of their own 14 business and their own priorities and schedules, they just 15 won't be able to.

6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I'd be delighted to support I7 this kind of a provision.

18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Your point is a very good 19 1 one, it ought to be supportable.

l 20 l MR. BICKWIT:

And your point that you haven't 21 received it in a reasonable time is a good one too.

22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

What does provision b 23ll relate to about the lead agency?

24 !

It's on page 8, b at the bottcm of the page.

=

x.i neooran. inc.,

25 l MR. CRANE:

Well, the one things that occurs to me I

62 I

mpb61 immediately is that if there's any ambiguity under the new 2h CEO guidelines which have an elaborate procedure for designat-ing lead agencies, coordinating agencies, and on appeals to t

CEO for designations where agencies disagree, though I frankly 5!

find it very hard to imagine that --

6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Well, I can assure you that 7

I can never support -- at least from my vote' on this, if 8

my answer,, when asked in Congress was it due, well, it appears 9

to me maybe.

You've got to have a darn good reason for why to '

it's there.

11 MR. CRANE:

Commissioner, the person who's expert I2 on coordination isn't in the room.

He might not have expected ~

I3 that we'd have gotten this far right now.

I can certainly ask I#

him to ccme up.

O COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Neither did I.

6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think we really haven't gotten I7 that far.

IO COMMISSIONEF. KENNEDY:

It was a giant leap forward 19

we took.

l 20.

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Why don't we, the next time 21 around, let us have him in the room.

22 '

What about the rest of these things?

We've got a l 23 l standardi::ation finding in here, but of course ce decided we l

24 'l won't have a section in the bill.

.a er neoorters,inc.,

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

But we also said that some i

\\

$++4>%%\\

$<s' h

eEEv <e 1,em TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 gmnu y,R'L2g 11 1,l

,Ej 'S EB 1,

.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART 4 l*

/ 4%

3; 4

t<>'k)

I g j

._i_m.. -

i

63 I

mpb62 conformitory la.'guage should be in there to suggest a desir-l 2

able course.

3l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think that's reasonable.

4 MR. BICKWIT:

I wasn't clear that the Commission 5;

did decide that the language would go in the bill.

That's why i

6' we bracketed this.

7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

UP in this section, I think 8

it s -- it gives us a basis for discussing it section by l

9 section.

10 i

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

We did not wish to commit 11 ourselves te anvthing that would sort of try to encourage it 12 in the sense that it provided incentives in the industry to do,

13 it.

Id MR. BICKWIT:

Well, as I remember Commissioner 15 Gilinsky objected even to that language in the bill.

0 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD The concern had to do with I7 the fact tJutt he never received a definition of standardi:a-18 tion.

MR. BICKWIT:

So we simply marked it for Committee' 20 l discussion.

2I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, I'd be glad to forward

'2 my testimony to him.

I've defined " standardization" before

'3 l j

assorted bodies of the Congress of the United States.

You 24 I can't very well object that you haven't had anything.

He may a

sral Reoorters, f ric.,

25 not like what you get or agree with it, but....

1 i

u 64 '

x l

l I

mpb63 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

We have endorsed it

'l 2

i certainly.

I may be sorry I asked.

3 :

i (Laughter.)

1 4

Is there ever in there a sentence about what sort ;

5 of standardization they're following?

0 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes, someplace down in the 7

depths of these mighty ventures.

I 8

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

The phrase "the more 9

efficient use of private resources", is that a real concern 10 '

for us?

As a citizen it might be a real concern, but as far as the NRC, is there a concern?

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, you know, you share in 13 the grammatical difficulties here.

i Id I'm sorry, John, I missed that.

15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I'm saying as a citizen 16 I'm interested in the more efficient use of private I7 resources.

I'm not sure that the NRC should be stressing 18 the concern about more efficient use of private resources.

19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Now wait a minute.

I'm lost.

20 Where am I?

i 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Finding 5.

22 MR. CRANE:

This is number 5 of the current draft.

23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Where they apply to a regulated 24 l monopoly industry, why, I think the whole concept of utility

=

,,si aeoone,. inc..

25 -

regulation by public service commissions is on the basis of

65 I

mpb64 effective use of the private resources of interest to the

,j 2 !!

society and so on, is that the kind of -- you did that sort 2

of thing, Peter.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

What?

This one?

5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

No, I'm sorry.

Let me not 6l attempt to fill you in on that.

There are too many conversa-l 7

tions going on.

8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Let me suggest that the 1

9 statement you made was one of statesmanship and a normal level 10 '

of brilliance.

11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Generally to be applauded.

I2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Without e doubt.

I3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Are you through with 5?

l#

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Yes.

15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Okay, number 6.

16 We're saying that in the sense of the early site I7 as a mechanism to permit meaningful public participation, as 18 I recall there are a number of groups that took exception to I9 that.

20 Do we have a counter-argument, if people argued i

21 that the early site provision is a mechanism in which the 22l site itself is being proposed and reviewed sufficiently far 23 l in advance of when there might be a potential for a plant to 24 be built, that you don't really get any large collection of a

eral Reoorters, Inc. :

25 people who are concerned in the area.

It's sort of a l

i

66 I

mpb65 lambasting in that the strong public participation comes when 2

there's an actual proposed plant to be built.

3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Well, that's a comment which g

f 4'

can be made.

And let me add another one.

S There has been complaint that the early site 6!

review and site permit provisions to the extent that they're 7

implemented, they create a predisposition on the part of the 8,

utility or the state that's banked those sites to go nuclear 9I when the time comes.

And all I can say is I'm sorry, it's I

10 '

a hard world.

11 You can't simultaneously try to deal with these 12 matters before there's a multi-million dollar project I3 barreling down the road and also not do it before the multi-s I#

million dollar project comes down.

IS '

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I was not raising whether 16 the early site was the sound thing; I was raising the question I7 1s it correct to say that early site -- one of the advantages

'18 is it permits meaningful public participation early.

I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I think it does.

If you get 20 in at a time before the guy has got all this momentum behind 21 a project, I think citizens who have ccmments to make about 22l land use aspects or site detailed locations and so on have 23 l got a substantially improved chance of having an impact.

24 Now, as you say, there is the down side, that er erst Reoorters, Inc.

25,

maybe five or ten years before a specific plant is planned to i

e

u 67 I

mpb66 come in, you know, there's news in the paper, they're hiring 2

people to work on the sites, maybe at that early time there 3

is more -- people are less likely to be interested in it.

4 But -- I don't know how far you can go to get the citizenr 5

against daemselves.

6 If somebody comes along and says Look, we're going, 7

to turn that pasture over there into a potential site for a 8

power plant, would you like to come around, you say, no, no, 9l as long as you don't have any plans to build anything 10 !

immediately, I don't care.

I think that's the citizens' problem.

12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

I think -- I don't have j

I3 a difficulty with the statement apart -- as long as it's l

l#

tied to a sense of early siting regimen.

If you tied that 15 sentence to an early siting provision which allcwed 25 year 16 permits and foreclosed further hearings under any circumstances, 17 then it would seem to me that you had a mismatch.

18 But I don't mind the sentence as long as I don't 19 mind the siting provision that goes along with it.

l

^0' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I don't know whether " permit" 21 is exactly the right word; to facilitate and --

22 MR. CRANE:

Allow.

23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

-- allow or encourage.

24 !

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I was just uneasy that one mi Noonm. inc. l

.a 25 l' of the advantages -- there are a lot of advantages and that i

i i

68 I

mpb67 didn e seem to be one of them.

i 2

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It's the rest of the

'l

,e phrase.

I d'

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

The rest of the phrase?

5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

No, the rest of the phrase--

6, is it possible that it can be most effective early on rather l

7 than later?

3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I don't know.

9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

The argument is often made 10 '

that that's the time when the public, if it wants to involve 11 itself, could most effectively do so, before a lot of commit-12 ments have been made which have melded plant to site.

13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

And in fact that the 14 point at which the standard has become obviously superior 15 instead of whatever, whatever standard one might apply.

0 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Right.

17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Do you want to delete 7?

18 Nevermind.

Strike that from the record.

19 MR. CRANE:

7 came out much too strong.

It ought 20 l to be changed to something on the order of a pilot program 1

21 for gar _ic funding of participants,where those participants' i

22 ability to take part is limited by financial considerations, 23 l can help determine the capability of such funding to 24 !

contribute to a fr.ir and full determination of the issues in z

tral Reoorters, Inc.

25 ;

those proceedings.

i i

l i

I

69 I

mpb68 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:

I don't see anything 2

wrong with that.

., !l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I would agree that the revision is closer to what you're drafting.

I 5j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

The revision is closer to 6l!

the actual....

7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

And I guess I have to 8l apply the same standard that I have been trying t

apply, 9!

so I would accept the revision.

I 10 '

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

That is the fundamental 11 fairness segment.

Let's flaunt it.

I2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I'm certa.nly willing to accept' I3 that when it flows that way.

I#

(Laughter.)

15 I

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I noticed a reluctance on 16 your part.

I7 (Laughter.)

18 MR. CRANE:

Mr. Parler raised a question about 19 l the sentence where those participar.ts ' ability to take part 20 is limited by financial considerations.

i I

2I MR. PARLER:

The ques tion I have raised is whether 22 that particular consideration was a significant or an over-23l riding consideration in the authority for the pilot program i

I 24 l which appears later on.

neoorters, ine. l

.c.

er.

25 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

It's on page 17, item 2.

I

70 1

I mpb69 It's certainly one of the things that we have, all of us, I,

2 believe, have always felt was a major consideration, that is 3

whether indeed the intervenor, whoever he may be, has a 1

i d'

contribution to make, and our own proceeding would suffer 51 from his not making it.

6 MR. PARLER:

My question was whether the financial: -

7 considerations point is such an important point that that i

8 should be emphasized at the outset in this legislation.

It 9

1 may well be, I don ' t know.

I just didn't read the legisla-l 10 '

tion, the draft legislation back on page 16, and thereafter, 11 that way.

12 But it's not a major poinw.

13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

It seems fair.

I#

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

No problem.

l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

All right.

16 Now let me raise a question of tactical deployment I7 of the resources of the body here.

18 We have had interesting and I think in the long 19 i run useful discussion. Dealing with a subject like this one 20 tends to make slow and heavy weather of the initial phases i

21 and then pick up, I think, what we've said here as a part of 22 '

the essential discussions we need to have to close on the 23 1 issues.

So I'm not discouraged.

But I want to get to page 3.

24 l We are at four o' clock.

I think it would be use-

,cr tral Recorters, Inc.

25 '

l ful if I could have a brief closed meeting on the other i

71 I

mpb70 matters this afternoon.

2 I know you just got back into town.

Other people

!3' have a lot of things to do.

And I wonder if this wouldn't I

be a place to adjourn this discussion and have the closed Si meeting, and then try to have the rest of the afternoon for....

6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

That's fine.

7 I would like to take one minute and just summarize 8

some of the concerns I have with this, so that at least I 9

will have mentioned it to the Staff at this point.

10 '

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

All right.

11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I gather the early site 12 approval one is introduced for Mr. Dingle's request.

Scme 13 of it seemed to be a little stronger than I thought we had l#

talked about.

The combined CP and OL --

15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

Too strong or stronger 16 than we had discussed?

I7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

I felt stronger than we had I8 discussed.

19 l The combined CP and OL, I couldn't understand what I

0lI the section -- what the purpose of some of the sections that 21 were in here were.

They seemed to track so close to the

• 2 existing sections in the law that it was -- I was mystified.

23 The federal coordination we already talked about 24 I i

in Section B.

Unless I can see why it's there, I couldn't go a

mi neoorvers, inc.,

25 ;I on with it.

1 l

l 1

a.

mpb71 1

The hearings one I will have to have talked I

2h through, have someone to talk through it, h

2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

You need a guide.

1 4

i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

What is it that's reallv I

5!

being done here?

What's the reason for it?

6 -

I was having real difficulty tracking that.

7' The interim operating license, fine, I understand 8

that.

9 The intervenor funding one, I guess is fine.

10 '

The interim operating license one, there seems 11 to be a very cumberseme approach for going through the 12 Department of Energy thing, and I would have to understand 13 how's that supposed to work and is that what they said that I#

they needed.

15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

I must say, John, it was just 16 some of the things like that that made me feel I needed a I7 marching through the document.

I wasn't quite sure about 18 even marking up the draft and sending a copy back because it l9 l seemed to me that what I had come up with, I eventually want i

20 !

to mark up a good deal on some discussion and better under-21 standing of it.

I 22 l So I'll try to get to that as soon as we can and i

23 got those discussions in.

24 !

MR. SICKWIT:

There are some quick answers to some

s wat Recorters, Inc.,

25-of those questions, if you want them now, or if you would prefer I

I

73 i

\\

mpb72 l j, to wait.

2 ll CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Why don't we take them next 3'

time, so we've got them _n mind when we go?

4 And I'll ask the Commissioners to please just 5

withdraw with me to the meeting room.

And, Sam, will you 6

please notify Commissioner Gilinsky immediately that we are 7

having a brief personnel meeting.

And I'll try to get you 8l all out in short order.

9!

(Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m.,

the conference in the l

10 i above-entitled matter was adjourned.)

11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 l 20 1

21 i

22 i

i i 23 24 !

-s eral Recorters. Inc.

25 jd

e >R REG t

O j

UNITED STATES

-t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMivilS5 ion WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 z, u, y = yds y

March 14, 1979 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Chairr.an Hendrie Conmissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Eradford Co"-issioner Ahearne bLeonard310kwit, Jr., General Counsel FROM:

SU3 JECT:

DRAFT SITING AND LICENSING LEGISLATION Attached is our latest draft of a possible Commission-sponsored siting and licensing proposal.

While some of it will recuire additional redrafting, we believe it is in such form as to provide a reasonable basis for Commission discussion.

ELD has reviewed most of the sections.

Time has not permitted us to have the benefit of their review on some.

Attachment:

Draft Bill cc:

OPE SECY

Contact:

Peter G.

Crane 634-3288

A EILL Oc amend the Atemic Energy Act of 1954 to permit determinations on sites for production and utilization facilities, and for cther purposes.

Ee it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Statei of America in Congress assembled, that this Act may be cited as the " Nuclear Regulatory Reform Act of 1979".

Sec.

2.

Findings and Purposes.

(a)

The Congress, recognizing that a clear and coordinated energy policy consistent with sound safety and environmental controls must include an effective licensing process for nuclear power reactors, finds and declares that:

(1) interstate commerce is substantially affected by the siting, construction, and operation of nuclear power reactors; (2) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should continue to exercise its independent statutory responsibilities to protect the public health and safety and the common defense and security, taking into account that absolute safety is an unattainable goal for any energy source, that adequate protection to the

2 I

health and safety of the public, in accordance with high standards established by the Commission, is the paramount censideration, and that cost is a facter to be considered in evaluating additicnal recuirenents beyond those necessary to provide such protection; (3) the States heve an essential role to fulfill in making determinations with respect to the siting and licensing of nuclear pcwer reacters, and cooperation and coordination between Federal and State agencies should be enhanced;

[(4) the national interest in the timely completion of environmental and other reviews and determinations warrants that Federal exercise of the authority to make these determi-nations be coordinated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission;]

[(5) the standarditation of nuclear power plant designs can enhance safety and the more efficient use of both private and public rescurces;]

( c )'

early Commission decisions on the acceptability of potential sites for nuclear power reactors, even before a particular power plant has been proposed for the particular site, enn. facilitate advance planning by States and utilities and permit meaningful public participation early in the planning process, when it can be most effective; and

a 3

/

',7) public funding of participants in Commission proceedings, where those participants' ability to take part is limited by financial considerations, can help centribute to a full and fair determination of issues in those proceedings.

(b)

The purposes of this Act are:

(1) to inprove the effectiveness of the nuclear power reactor licensing process, consistent with sound environmental, safety and safeguards principles; (2) to provide for early Commission determinations on site suitability, to facilitate advance planning, increase the efficiency of the licensing process, and permit early and effective public participation in siting determinations; (3) to provide incentives for early submission of final designs for nuclear power reactors, including standardized designs, by authorizing in such circumstances the issuance cf combined construction permits and operating licenses; (4) to permit more effe ctive utilization of resources by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards;

[(5) to provide for a more effective allocation of nuclear power reactor review responsibilities and for cooperation and

4

crdination at the Federal level;]

l5) to prcvide that hearings on applications to construct and te cperate production and utilization facilities shall be held when requested by any person whose interest may be affected; l7) to authorice public funding of qualified participants in Co--ission proceedings, and other purposes.

Sec. 3 Secticn 192 cf the Atcmic Energy Act of 1954 is amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 192.

EARLY SITE APPROVAL OF UTILIZATION AND PRODUCTION FACILITIES. --

a.

Any person may file with the Commission an application for approval of a sitt for one er more utilization or production facilities, notwithstanding the fact that no applicaticn for a construction permit or a combined construction permit and c;erating license has teen filed with the Commission.

Each such site permit application shall be in writing and shall specifically state such information as the Commission,'oy rule er regulation, may determine to be necessary to decide the suit-ability of the site for its intended purpose.

The Commission, en the basis of such siting criteria and other requirements as it may' establish by rule,

>gulatien, er order, may issue the site permit, refuse to issue the site permit, or grant the site

5 permit with such conditions as it deems appropriate.

The Commission shall, by rule or regulation, prescribe the period or periods during which site permits issued pursuant to this subsection shall be valid.

Except for good cause shown, the period shall not exceed ten years.

Nothing in this subsection shall preclude a determination that particular aspects of the site are suitable for its intended purpose.

[b.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission or the State in which the site is located, any applicant for a con-struction permit or a combined construction permit and operating license for a utilization or production facility to be located on a site approved pursuant to subsection a. may prepare the approved site for construction and perform such limited con-struction activities at the site as the col:.23sion may deter-mine to be permissible by rule or regulation, upon prior written notice to the Commission and to the State and publica-tion twice in maj or newspapers serving the affected area.

Such activities shall be conducted at the risk of the applicant and shall be subj ect to modification or revocation by the Ccm-mission at any time.

Safety-related construction activities shall not proceed beyond a cne-year period unless the Commission extends such period upon good cause shown.

Nothing in this sub-section shall relieve any applicant from complying with any i

.a s

6

/

provisions of State law applicable to such site preparation or limited construction activities."]

Sec. 4 Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 185.

CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND OPERATING LICENSES. --

a.

All applicants for licenses to construct or modify production or utilization facilities shall be initially granted a construction permit, if the application s otherwise acceptable to the Commission.

The construction permit shall state the earliest and latest dates for completion of the construction or modification.

Unless construction or modifi-cation is completed by the stated date, the construction permit shall expire, and all rights thereunder shall be forfeited, unless the Ccamission extends the completion date, upon good cause shown.

Upon completion of the con-struction or nodification, and upon filing of any additional information needed to bring the original application up to date, and upon finding that the facility authorized has been constructed and will be operated in conformity with the application as amended and in conformity with the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations of the Commission,

t 7

/

and in the absence of any good cause being shown to the Com-mission why granting a license would not comply with the previsions of this Act, the Cc= mission shall thereupon issue a license to the applicant.

For all other purposes cf this Act, a construction permit is deemed to be a ' license'.

b.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the v:mmission may issue a corabined construction permit and operating license for a thermal neutron power generation facility to the applicant, if the application contains sufficient information to support issuance of both a construc-tion permit and operating license in accordance with the Cctmission's rules.and regulations and to enable the Ccamis-sien to make the determinations relating to the common dc fense and security and the public health E.nd safety required by sections 103 and 182."

[Sec. 5.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by adding a new section 195 to read as follows:

"Sec. 195 FEDERAL COORDINATION. --

a.

With respect to any application for a site permit, for approval of a standardized facility design, for a construction permit and/cr operating license, or for a manufacturing license, the Cc= mission shall establish a schedule for the conduct and completion of all required Commission reviews and decisions.

8

/

The Ccmmission is authorized to cooperate with other agencies with review and/or decisionmaking authority regarding the siting, licensing, construction, or operation of nuclear power reactor facilities in order to eliminate duplication of effort, establish a common data base for similar reviews and decisions, and assure timely decisions.

After consultation with the interested agencies, the Commission shall establish target dates con-sistent with the Commission schedule for completion of agency reviews and decisions.

All Commission cooperative efforts, including establishment of schedules and target dates, shall be accomplished in a manner consistent with the statutory obligations of all Federal agencies, and the Commission shall have no authority to require any r 9ncy'to reach a particular decision on the merits of any matter pending before it.

Neither the establishment of a schedule or target date by the Commission nor the failure of any affected agency to meet a schedule or target date shall be subject to judicial review, whether in a proceeding to review or set aside an individual affected agency decision, or otherwise.

b.

The Commission shall be the lead agency for purposes of the preparation of any environmental impact statement required by section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, for any action taken under this act."]

9

/

Sec. 6.

Subsection 182b. of the Atcmic Energy Act of 1954 is am' ended to read as follows:

"b.

The Advisory Committee on Reactor SafeSuards shall review each application under section 103 cr section 104 b.

for a manufacturing license for a facility, each application under section 103 or 104 b.

for a construction permit and/or an opera-ting license for a testing facility, any application under section 104 a. cr c.

specifically referred to it by the Commis-sion, any application for a site permit under section 192 a.,

and any application for an amendment to a manufacturing license er construction permit or an amendment to an operating license under section 103 or 104 a.,

b.,

or c.

or an amendment to a site permit under section 192 a. specifically referred to it by the Commission, and shall submit a report thereon:

Provided, however, That unless the Commission specifically requests a review and report on an application or portion thereof, the Ccmmittee may dispense with all or part cf such review and report by notifying the Commission in writing that all or part of such review by the Committee is not warranted.

Any such notice that review is not warranted shall include a brief state-ment of the basis for this conclusion.

Any report or notice required by this subsection shall be made a part of the record of the application and available to the public except to the extent that security classification prevents disclosure."

10

/

Sec. 7.

Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 189.

HEARINGS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW. --

a.

In any proceeding under this Act, for the grantinr.,

suspencing, revoking, or amending of any license, construction permit, or site permit pursuant to subsection 192 a.,

or appli-cation to transfer control, and in any proceeding for the issuance or modification of rules and regulations dealing with the activities of licensees or holders of site permits pursuant to subsection 192 a.,

and in any proceeding for the payment of compensation, a.1 award, cr royalties under section 153, 157, 186 c., or 188, the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the request of any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding.

With respect to each application under section 103 or 104 b.

for a license to manufacture a facility, each applica-tien under section 103 or 104 b.

for a construction permit and/or operating license for a facility, any application under subsection 104 c.

for a construction permit or operating license for a testing facility, any application for an amendment to a license to manufacture or to a construction permit and/or operating license for such facilities, and any application under subsection 192 a. for a site permit or for an amendment thereto,

11

/

the Ccmmission shall publish a notice that consideration is being given to granting any such application once in the Federal Register and twice in maj or newspapers serving the affected area, at least one hundred and eighty days (sixty days fcr operating license applications and thirty days for applications to amend manufacturing and operating licens,s.

constructicn permits and site permits) prior to granting anj such application.

The Cc= mission may dispense with the thirty days' notice and publication of any application for an amend-ment to a manufacturing license, a construction permit and/or an operating license, or a site permit pursuant to subsection 192 a.,

upon a determination by the Commission that the amend-ment involves no significant additional risk to the health and safety of the public:

provided, that the Commission shall publish notice of issuance of such an amendment once in the Federal Register and twice in major newspapers serving the affected area.

b.

Any final order entered in any proceeding described in subsection a. above, or with respect to the issuance of an interim operating license under section 193, shall be subject to judicial review in the manner prescribed in the Act of December. 29, 1950, as amended (ch. 1189, 64 stat. 1129), and tc the provisions cf section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended."

12

/

.Sec. 8.

The Atemic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by adding a new secticn 193 to read as follows:

"Sec. 193 I::TE?.IM CPERATING LICENSE. --

a.

Nothwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, he Ccamission may issue, in.the case of a nuclear power reacter, an interim operating license or an interim amendment to an Operating license, or may allow interim operation of a facility for which a combined construction permit and operating license has been issued under section 185, in advance of the conduct or completion of any required hearing.

The Commission may not issue an interim operating license or allow interim operation of a facility for which a combined construction per-mit and operating license has been issued unless it determines that such action is necessary because of an urgent public need er emergency.

The Commission may not issue an interim amend-ment to an operating license unless it determines that such action is [necessary in the public interest] [necessary owing to a demonstrable public need for the power from the facility].

Any operating license or amendment so issued shall contain and any interim operation shall be subject to such conditions as the Ccamission deems necessary to assure that any subsequent findings and crders of the Commission with respect to the

13

/

subfect matter cf the proceeding will be given full force and effect and in all other respects the recuirements of the Atcmic Energy Act of 1,054, as amended, including, but not limited c,

matters cf public health and safety, shall be met.

Prior to issuance of any such interim license er prior to allowing any such interim cperation, the Cc= mission shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent to do so which provides that any persen whcse interest may be affected may request a hearing on whether such action is necessary because of an argent public need or emergency.

The Commission itself shall preside at any such hearing and the nature of the hearing en urgent public need or emergency, whether in accordance with sections 554, 556, and 557 of Title 5 of the United States Code cr otherwise, shall be determined by the Commission in light of the nature of the factual issues in dispute.

Prior to issuance Of any such amendment the Commission shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent to do so requesting cctments from interested persons on whether such action is [necessary in the puolic interest][necessary owing to a demonstrable public need for the power frcm the facility:.

No such interim license er Enendment may be issued or interim operation allowed for a period to exceed twelve months, unless the Ccmmission extends such period for goed cause shown.

14

/

[b.

The Cc= mission shall not nake a determination pur-suant to subsection a. that issuance of an interim cparating license or amendment, or authorization of interin operation, is necessary without prior written certification from the Secretary of Energy that an urgent public need or emergency, in the case of an interim operating license or interim opera-tion, or a demonstrable public need for the power from the facility, in the case of an interim operating license amend-ment, exists:

Provided, however, That the Secretary of Energy shall delegate such certification authority to qualifying States pursuant to subsection c.

of this section.

c.

The Secretary of Energy shall establish procedures by which States may designate a certifying authority, and demon-strate a capability to perform the certifications of public need or emergency specified in subsection b.

of this section.

Upon determining that a State qualifies, the Secretary shall delegm;e authority to make such certifications with respect to all facilities located within its borders and intended to pro-vide 50% or more of its generated electrical power within its borders.

In the event that no single State is intended to use 50% or more of the electrical power from the facility, or that the facility is not located within the State intended to use

15

/

50% cr acre of such power, certifications of need shall be by agreenent of the two or more States in question, er by agree-

.ent of the State cr States and the Secretary of Energy, where one or mere of the affected States has not received a delega-tier of certification authority under this subsection:

Provided, however, That no such certification of need shall be required with respect to any State, other than the State in which the facility is located, that is intended to use less than 10% of the pcwer frc= the facility.

Where the licensee is not a public atility regulated by a State, such certification of need shall be made by the Secretary of Energy In the even that affected States fail to agree, the Secretary of Energy shall forward his views to the Commission, together with the views of the affected State or States.

Certifications of need by the affected State or States or the Secretary of Energy shall be weighed by the Cc= mission in making its determination whether to grant the requested interim operating license or amendment or permit interim operation.]

Sec. 9(a).

A new section 194 is added to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to read as follows:

"Sec. 194 FUNDING OF INTERVENORS. --

=

16

/

a.(1)

There are hereby authorized such sums as may be necessary for establishing a pilot program fer funding inter-

.encrs in initial or renewal licensing proceedings, ireluding site permit, cperating license and enendment proceedings, and in rulemaking proceedings in which an oral hearing is held by the Cc= mission or a presiding officer designated by the Commis-sien, conducted by the Cormission pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Energy Reorganization Act of 973, as amended.

(2)

This section does not authori.:e funds for merely attending, as opposed to participating as a party intervenor in, Cc= mission proctedings, or for proceedings where the cost of participation is minimal.

(3)

This section does not create any new right to par-ticipate in any Commission proceeding not authorized by other provisions of law.

"b.

The Commission shall pay fcr all or part of the cost of intervention of a party, including attorneys' fees, in Com-mission proceedings of the type described in subsection a.,

upon recuest and subject to available appropriations.

The amount paid, if any, need not cover all the costs of interven-tion and shall be determined with due consideration to procedures

l'

/

and criteria established by the Cc= mission by rale or regulation fer selecticn and paynent of intervenors.

The rules shall stipulate criteria for determining the eligibility of inter-vencrs for funding and the amount of funds to be provided.

These criteria shall include the following:

(1) that the intervenor's interest in tne matter is one thrt entitles such inter-vencr to participate in the proceedings; (2) that the intervention would not occur or its effectiveness would be significantly limited in the absence of funding; (3) that the intervenor's participation is likely to lead to presentation of views that would not otherwise have been presented; and (4) that presentation of such views is likely to be necessary in order that a fair determina-tion be made.

The Ccamission shall by rule, regulation or order, allocate available funds for costs of intervention to types or classes of proceedings.

"c.

The E=ount of payment shall be based on rules, regu-lations, or orders promulgated pursuant to subsection b.

and the intervenor's contribution to the proceeding.

Payments

IS

/

shall be made following the proceeding unless the intervenor establishes to the satisfacticn of the Cenmission that advance payments are recuired in order t'lat its participation not be substantially im,iired.

"d.

The Commission may decline to pay all or part of the costs of participation of a party who is otherwise eligible for payment under this section if the Ccamission determines that the party has acted toward any other participant or the Ccamission in an obdurate, dilatory, sendacicus, or oppressive A party who receives advance payment pursuant to sub-manner.

section c. shall be liable for repayment of part or all of such-payments actually received whenever the Ccamission determines that --

(1) the party clearly has not provided the representation for which the payments were made, or (2) the party has acted toward any other participant or the Ccamission in an cbdurate, dilatory, mendacious, or oppressive manner.

"e.

The amount of costs of' intervention awarded under this section for a particular proceeding shall be based upcn

19

/

the appropriations available and the prevailing market rates fcr the eind and quality of the services furnished, except that no expert, consultant or attorney shall be compensated at a rate in excess of the highest rate of ccmpensation for experts, attorneys and censultants paid by the Commission.

"f.

Whenever multiple applications for payment under this section are submitted, the Cc= mission may require con-solidation of duplicative presentations, select one or more effective representatives to participate, offer compensation cnly for certain categories of expenses, or jointly compensate parties representing identical or cTosely related viewpoints.

"g.

A party may obtain judicial review of a Commission action denying in whole or in part a request for payment under this section in the appropriate court of the United States having jurisdiction of an appeal frem the proceeding in which the party participated notwiths*.ading that such Cetmission action may be interlocutory 'a nature:

Provided, however, That no order to stay the proceeding in which application for pay-ment of fees and costs under this section was made shall be entered by that court in such an action; And provided further, That no Ccamission action under this section may be vacated, enj oined, set aside, or suspended by a court except where there has been a clear abuse of discretion.

20

/

"h.

The Octrission shall, within ninety days after the date cf ena:: ent cf this section, prepose regulations to implement the previsions of this section.

Such regulations shall be adcpted by the Cct=ission and take effect nc later than one hunaced and eighty days after the date of enactment of this secticn.

"1.

This pilot program for intervencr funding shall be limited Oc applica:1cns for funding filed with the Ccmmission before December 31, 1984, in proceedings for which the Cctrission has issued a notice of opportunity for hearing by that date.

By December 31, 1983 the Commission shall prepare and transmit to the Congress a report en the impact and effectiveness of this pilot program for funding intervenors.

In the event that there is enacted into law legislation pro-tiding generally for the funding of participants in agency proceedings, this pilct program shall terminate on the date

cn which the funding program authorized by such general legislation beccmes effective."

(b)

Section 189 b.

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended by adding a new sentence at the end to read as follows:

" Orders by the Cc= mission pursuant to section 194 denying in whole or in part recuests for funds shall be subject to judicial review as provided in section 194, and shall not be subject to judicial review as part of the final Octrission order in the proceeding."

W e