ML19294A544
| ML19294A544 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/27/1978 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7812140298 | |
| Download: ML19294A544 (94) | |
Text
.
j
~
0Rl341 c($
NUCLEA REGULATO RY COMMISSIO N-
~
r N
w IN THE MATT 1!R OF-COMMISSION MEETING Discussion of Proposed Commission Response to IRG Report on Waste Management Place -
Washington, D.C.
Date -
Monday, 27 November 1972 peges 1 - 93 e
L,,,,.c k_
(200) h7-37CC 7812140gty
.C -EmL HE?ORTERS,INC.
Ofjic:slReparars y
.L.LL Ner n C..itel 5 truer Wcshingen. D.C.2CCO1 NATICNWIDE COVERAGE - CAli.Y
1 CR1495 l
.(
t
=.=:.==., -.
DISCLAIMER This is. an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 27 November 1978 in the Comission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Wasnington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
Th'is transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general infoma'tional purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the fomal or infomal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Comission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Comission may authorize.
h e
e h
0
2 CR1495 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHITLOCK barb 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3l
(~
4 l
5 6
Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
7 Washington, D.C.
8 Monday, 27 November 1978 9
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 n.m.,
10 !
BEFORE:
11 DR. JOSEPH M.
HENDRIE, Chairman 12 '
RICHARD KENNEDY,, Commissioner 13 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 14 PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner 15 JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner.
l 16 ALSO PRESENT:
17 H.
SHAPAR L.
GOSSICK 18 D.
CUNNINGHAM S.
FUCIGNA 19 S.
TRUBATCH K.
PEDERSEN 20 D.
RATHBUN J.
BUNTING 21 l
l 22 23 l I
i 24 '
l Am Kaceral Rooorters, Inc.
25 l l
I
CR 1495-3 WH4TLOCK t-1 mte 1 1
P,,,R_ Q g E,{ D,I,,,N_ G S, 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let us come to order.
3, The subject this afternoon is a discussion of a i
e-4 proposed Commission response to the Inter-Agency Review 5
Group Report on Waste Management.
I scheduled this meeting i
6 because our comments on this report are due on, I believe it 7
is, the 4 th of December.
There were several versions of the -- of a draft 8,
I i
9 report circulating, and it seemed likely that it would be l
10 helpful to arriving at a consensus in a short time to have a i
11 certain amount of talking to each other all around the same 12 tab le, rather than iterating draft paragraphs around the 13 eleventh floor corridors.
The response time on that latter 14 system is a little, inevitably a little slower than I think j
l I
15 is indicated here.
~
b i
16 Vic will be away the -- well, a couple of days this 17 week.
So we would think that this afternoon is the chance i
18 we have to meet with all five of us handily at hand.
19 There have been several pieces of paper that have j
l 20 circulated rather recently.
So I apologize to the Commis-21 sioners for bringing them to the table, as it were, to deal 22 with newly-created papers.
On the other hand, if we are going,
I 23 1 to make a response in a timely way, that is sort of the way 24 l things work.
samens Recomn. inc. :
25 !
To review the bidding, one of the recent pieces of i
i -
1 l
i
mte 2 o
paper is a November 24th thing from OPE which has the version j
f this draft reply which we had, I guess, a week ago Friday, 2
which represented a sort of final round effort by Sandy Fucigna 3
and the staff assistants.
4 I
I Then there was subsequently -- that is Attachment 1 I
5 to the OPE paper.
Th cl.e was a draft prepared in Commissioner 6
Ahearne's office, a somewhat shorter version focusing more on 7
key issues, which is Attachment 2 to the OPE paper.
And I 3
i guess there is, finally, a several-page summary from -- of the 9
10 !
points and differences between the two drafts.
In addition, 11 there is a two-page, late-running flyer from Peter, labeled
" Additional Concerns with IRG Report to the President," list-12 ing three, possibly four, items that might be considered for 13 inclusion in the letter.
ja I
So those are the papers that we have before us.
In l
15 l
order to have something to work from, I guess I would find it 16 easier to work from the shortest one, which would be John's 17 draft; and then we could consider the nature of items that l
18 I
19 might be added or conceivably even subtracted, if that would be satisfactory to you.
If not, I will entertain other 20 l
I motions.
21 (No response.)
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We are starting with a 23 tabula r.tsa.
24 W 1 erst Reporters, Inc.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I was going to pick up the 25 l
l l
mte 3' 5
short version on the general basis that short ones might be asier to deal with than. longer ones.
And seizing on the 2
3l silence of a minute or two ago, John, would you like to say a 1
good word.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's straightforward.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What I tried to do is to 7
approach it from the point of view that at this stage of g
responding to the report, recognizing that the staff would be 9
i submitting a number of technical adjustments, that we ought to 10 I be focusing upon items that we felt were sort of three differ-11 ent types:
either something that we believed was a signifi-12 cant impact upon the NRC, and that we believe that,the report 13
(
had it wrong and ti.it we ought to identify it; or something ja that we believed was a major issue that was of significant 15 cencern to us, that the report could, in a reasonable amount 16 of time -- recognize that the report is going to have to be j7 submitted, and that they are not going to do any very lengthy 18 l
amount of work.
But if there was something important that we j9 thought we could call attention to and that would be of 20 significant benefit to us, to have that dcne, and we ought to 21 identify it.
22 And then, any other of the issues that seemed to be 23 addressed in the staff report that were of great significance.
24 Ac.
mi neoornn, inc. :
I' My general philosophy is that in the final stages of 25 i
I i
i l
i
mte 4 6
e commenting upon a draft report, one ought to focus as best 1
p ssible on items that are of extreme significance and that 2
are really germane to one's own activity.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I should note that it was the intent always to have our staf f transmit directly to the RG 3
staff and discuss with them what would probably be a fairly 6
substantial series of items, some technical --
7 OMMISSIONER GIMNSW:
Has de staM already done 8
1 this?
There has been no comment frcm --
l 9
i MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Not since the publication of the 10 l l
jj report.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The draft report?
12 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes, we have been holding off in 13
\\
submitting our corments until the Commission's comments went j
14 l
I in.
Our comments would be more editorial, technical.
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The staff has commented on 16 the draf t draf t report.
17 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
We have not commented on the 18 39 report that was published for public comment.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The October 18th or thereabouts 20 publication.
But it always -- actually, the Ccemission i
21 comments, as proposed in the staff -- what I will call for 22 i
23 ;
these purposes the staff draft -- the intent always was there
~
I 24 l would be a Commissioner letter, which would not be overlong.
l l
Aca-%eral Reoorters, Inc. l' There was to be an enclosure to the Commission letter.
And j
25 i
I
7 mte 5 finally, at the third letter, there were to be direct staf f-1 to-staff comments, so that that avenue of communication for all 2
3l manner of details is open, and.it was always contemplated to I
be open.
I think the argument in part here is that some of the 5
things in the staff draft could reasonably go -- that the 6
Commission letter is trying to focus on --
7 8
A a e some concern about sending staf f comments over so that there were different 9
f entities, one called the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the 10 !
other called the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff, whose ij w rk products in no way interacted.
Obviously, there is a 12 place for detail in a set of comments.
But it would seem to 13 me we would be just as well if we would send them in the jj i
same envelope or at least in the Commission comments made some,
15 i.
reference to the fact that the staff would be providing 16 detailed comments separately.
37,
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I had the same concern.
If I 18 were the people receiving the comments, I wouldn't know what j9 to do with them.
What stature or status would they in fact 20 have, if the Commission said one thing and another group of g
people, whoever they may be, said something dif ferent and 22 I
i' maybe not inconsistently, but differently?
And I wondered 23 what they would do with them.
24 Ac.
erai s.corrers, ine. :
CHAIRMAN HENDRIF :
It seems to me that we ought to 25 i-
mte'6 8
note that that channel was being used.
Were these staff-to-staff comments -- was it. intended that those all be in 2
writing?
3 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And are they at hand?
5 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We have a draft.
I don't know --
3 MS. FUCIGNA:
The Commissioners' staff got copies of 7
that.
g MR. CUNNINGHAP:
It is large and it is mainly 9
I ed ' torial, changing words around.
It tries to avoid any of 10 the policy issues which we -- which the Commission had.
It is 11 12 very detailed, smal', nitpicking type of comments.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Correction of numbers, language.
jy MR. CUNNINCHAM:
Yes, that type of thing.
14 I
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All kinds of references.
15 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
But we tried to have it entirely l
16 l
within the envelope of the policy issues which the Commission 17 will address in its letter.
We are not trying to bring up any 18 1
19 other policy issues that the Commission would not have included' in its --
20 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That would not be true if we 21 were w rking from John's draft.
2, 23 l MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We would have to go back through andj t
24 see if it would remain true.
That is one of the reasons that Aw
- eral Reporters, Inc.
we did not send it out until we ' 'ard from the Commission what 25 I
I
mte 7 9
i its letter is going to be like.
I really think that there 2
would be a problem.if we.-brought up additional policy issues in 3_
our letter that weren't addressed in the Ccmnission's letter.
I s
4 I think there that would give IRG a problem.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It would probably give some 6
of us a problem, too.
7 (Laughter.)
8 CEAIRMAN HENDRIF:
As we work down, then, we will 9
have to take note of these things and see what the disposition,
10 !
ought to be.
11 John, your draf t didn't contemplate an enclosure?
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No.
If it is felt that there 13 should be a statement that additional detailed comments will 14 be provided by the staf f, I have no problem with that.
That j
l 15 is fine.
16 My general point is that I was trying to get some-l 17 thing that Schlesinger and Deutch anc. :tus IRG senior members
{
18 would read.
If you send over a big package, there is very 19 little chance of that.
I i
l 20 1 COMHISSIONER GILINSKY:
They will assume we didn't 21 write it.
j 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Even if we did --
23 (Laughter.)
24 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNF-I know some of them well Acs." *eral Reporters, Inc.
25 l enough that they wouldn' t care.
But if it was a big package, I
mte 8-10 they would just conclude that we hadn't bothered to sit around j
and decide what is really important, the wheat from the chaf f.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And your conclusion is that the 3
staff-proposed letter and enclosure was getting too long?
4 l
COMMISSIONER AHEAPNE:
Yes.
I thought there were 5
e-1 some points that were sort of the major thing there.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
7 (Pause.)
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARME:
If I can point out, I essen-l 9
t 10 I tially addressed four items.
It appeared to me that the most 11 important issue that we should raise that had a reasonable 12 chance of a decision being made and then incorporated or a recommendation in the final recort was the cuestion of the 13,
l ja incorporation of the NEPA requirements.
That seemed to be j
i i
15 something that was appropriate to the IRG, that they cer11 inly 16 had debated it long enough, I am sure, and just had dodged 17 addressing it as a final recommendation, probably because of i
1i inability to reach a conclusion.
But I f elt that was something 19 that we ought to call attention to.
20 The second item is, they have a listing of a summary j l
l 21 work plan and it says somethina that we are coing to do.
And 22 it wasn't clear to me, at least when I read that -- and I askedi 23 several other people.
When they read it, they concluded that 24 it meant something that would.aterpret that we would be i
l A o.
w er. neoemri, inc.
25 accomplishing -- setting out specific technical recuirements l_
l l
l l
l i
i s
mte 9 11 i
1 for geological depositories for high-level waste by the end 2
of 1979.
3 My understanding is there is no way we are going to i
4 do that.
I thought that it was important to clarify that so 5
that at some later point it didn't come back to us and we are 6
not -- everybody else is going along on the basis that we are 7
going to reach a certain point at a certain time, and we are 8
nt: going to be there.
9 Then the staff made a major point of answering this 10 !
question of the relationship between nuclear waste disposal 11 and nuclear reactor licensing, and since that seemed to be a i
i 12 !
very important issue to many people, I put that in.
And then 13 the licen' sing determination issue, it certainly was important 14 and I thought it would be easy for them to include in the i
i 15 report and it was an important issue.for us as regards what j
l 16 position we would take on the question that the Congress has I
I l
17j asked us to do a study on that issue; therefore, it is appro-j 18 priate for us to respond.
I 19 Those seemed to me to be the critical, important 20 cuestions to answer.
21 CHAIRMAN 3ENDRIE:
I think that those are certainly ---
t 22 thev certainly are important questions to deal with.
Let's 23 i find out if those are all that need to be dealt with in the l
l 24,
letter.
i Am "Mwat Rmonws Inc.
l 25 !
If I look at the list of issues, looking now at that I
i i
mte 10 12 I
third thing in the Attachment 3 in the OPE paper, where it is 2
trying to sort out the differences in the drafts and so on, 3
termed Roman number II --
4 MR. PEDE RSEN :
A fairly quick way to grasp it is, the 5
NMSS version has essentially 12 points, 3 in the cover letter 6
and 9 issues.
The 3 cover letter points are 1, 2 and 3 on the 7
first page of Attachment 3, and then, under Roman numeral II 8
we list 9 issues that were raised in the attachment to the l
9, NMSS cover letter.
~
i i
l 10 Commissioner Ahearne's version, as best we can tell, 11 lj dealt with -- it discusses issues 1, 2,
4 and 9.
And, as you l
12 1 will note in our breakout, the first -- in each case, the first 13 paragraph summarizes what the NMSS version says, the second l
14 paragraph summarizes what Commissioner Ahearne's version said l
15 where he spoke to that issue, and the third paragraph summarizes l
16 what the IRG report said about that issue.
j i
17 We felt this would be the most us aful way for you f
18 to deal with it.
So if you begin with Roman numeral II, you I
19 have the 9 issues raised by MMSS, the 4 of those that 20 Consissioner Ahearne would propose to address, and, in summary l l
21 form, what the IRG report said that cave rise to those com-i l
22 ments.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Any argument on 1, which I guess 24 would be -- does John's language do adequately for it?
Lee Federet Repornrs, Inc.
25 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are we under Roman II now?
l._
l i
mhe 11 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it's all under Roman II.
MR. PEDERSEN:
The major issues, yes, are all under 2
Roman numeral II.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There are the other 3.
4 EDERS D.
Yes.
5 MR. RATHBUN:
The sequencing doesn't track because 6
they arose in different orders.
Consequ'ently, the order 7
tracks the order that was in the NMSS draf t.
8 MR. PEDERSON:
Obviously, Dick Cunningham or s
9 10 i Commissioner Ahearne might want to define further our effort to summarize their views.
We made as straightforward an effort 11 as we could.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNF:
I think you did a fine job in 13 trying to pull it together.
I have no strong pride of author-34 ship or anything like that.
I was trying to construct something 15 -
which would seem to focus more specifically.
l 16 i
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I did have problems with than j7 area.
It seems to me to be a little too coy for us to say it 18 is a public policy question and, as an independent regulatory 19 body, we don't believe it appropriate to take a position.
20 I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Wait a minute.
Are we on 21 i
l 3?
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
This is John's comment on 23 !
I i
his Point 3, which is Point No. 1 in the surrary.
24 Ace wer neoonm, inc.
I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Point No. 1 under Roman l
25 l
l
mte 12 14 1
numeral II.
(Laughter.)
2 MR. PEDERSEN :
We used the NMSS draf t sequence.
3 I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What order are we going 4
- "9 5
COMISSIOJER EMM:
M ch draft are we wo M ng on?
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I thought we were working 7
on Attachment 3.
g CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think Attachment 3 is a good 9
i 10 ;
place to crank down.
MR. PEDERSON:
I think then you will have to turn,
- j perhaps, to the two drafts to see how they were handled.
That 12 gives you in a capsule what the issue is about, hopefully, 13 CHJIRMAN HENDRIF: - Roman II(1).
ja COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I agree with Commissioner 15 I
i' Bradford, what I th.tnk he is going to say.
16 COMMISSICNER BRADFORD:
If I hear another, I will g
i stop right there.
18 I
Two p ints.
I think the Commission has already 19 spoken to that public policy question in saying that it would 20 in fact find it very difficult -- whatever the exact language j
21 l
was -- would not continue to license, et cetera, the waste 22,
being disposed of safely.
For that reason alone, it is hard 23 24 l to say that we wouldn't comment here.
i us%.r.i a.corrers, inc. ;
25 '
The secondreason is that we will inevitably be asked l l
mte.13 15 1
in various other forums -- in fact, I think we have already 2
been asked by Bingham and Dingell -- to comment again on 3
whether there should be & legislative link.
And I don't 4
think that we propose to answer them that it is a public policy I
i 5
cuestion.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I read the report as really 7
asking the public, as opposed to us or other agencies, what do a'
they think, what is their position on should there be a link, l
9:
what kind of a link should there be.
And so, my comment is 10 '
that, in that sense, that the -- I believe the IRG was asking 11 for the general public to respond, and what do they believe, 12 what k4nd of a link ought there to be.
I don ' t think that 13 they were asking such things as:
What have the courts decided, 14 or what position have you people taken in the past?
15 COMMISS IONER GILINSF.Y :
What is the point of your I
16 comment, then?
Obviously, you think it is important enough to ;
i 17 include in --
l i
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As I said, Vic, when I j
l 19,
summarized those, it was a major point of great concern to the !
l 20 staff, and so I concluded that was the great concern, was to l
21 make sure that it was clearly established that as far as the 22,
law goes, the law, by decisions of the cacrts, has taken cer-I 23 l tain positions.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSrl:
I don't see how vou can i
Reoorte,. inc. {
~
Ace.F.e.,
25 j address this point and not say what position the Commission i
l l
mte 14' 16 I
has taken on this in the past.
In fact, that is a point that 2
the court itself raised or addressed in its decision.
I mean, 3
I think it played a role in the decision.
The court concluded I
i 4
that we were behaving responsibly and this was one of the --
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think that -- that's what 6
I thqpght John 's paper said, that the Commission has addressed 7
this issue in two instances.
So he is saying what the 8
Commission has done in the past.
9; It is where he comes out at the end of his disserta i
10 '
tion that differs from the staff view.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think even the staff 12 didn' t make explicit what the Commission's view was.
It is 13 not present in the other letter, ei ther.
I think it is impor-14 tant to say that the Commission saw a link there, clearly.
It _
15 is just that it was not felt that the law required it to make 16 a legal determination that there was a means of permanently j
l 17 ;
disposing of --
i 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me turn it around, Vic.
l 19 1 What I think the report is asking is:
What kind of a link 20 ought there to be in the future?
l l
i i
l 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
l 22 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
And what would the answer be 23 i that you would think appropriate?
i 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seens to me that at a Am * *was Amorwrs, lm, 25 l minimum you have to sort of sav how the Commission has come I
mte 15-17 down on this issae.
j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In the past.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And what is the view of the 3
i 4l Commission.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But I think what the cuestion 5
6 really is is:
What should the link be in the future?
Not what have we said in the last; what ought the link to be in the 7
future.
8I I
1 I hadn' t realized that we had recently addressed, at 9
io !
least in the context of this, addressed that issue.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think that is our view 12 until we change it.
I mean, that isv the Commission 's view.
13 Now, it may he that, given the new information that is availa-14 ble, that that is something one wants to take a look at again.
15 But I think it is an important enough point.
I think you were '
16 exactly right to include it in your letter.
But I think we I
17l have to go further and say, you know --
l i
I l
i 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
To say what?
i 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What view we have taken in 20 this connection.
I 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What would you say?
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would put the sentence 22 23 l that we had in our opinion, which the court cited, that we i
24 wouldn't be licensing reactors if we didn't -- I forget the Ace Heral Reporters, Inc. j 25 i exact words -- reasonable assurance --
I I
i
mte 16 18 l
1 MR. SEAPAR:
The Commission has a connitment to re-2 assess the basis for the confidence that a solution will be 3
found in light of new data developed and progress made in the fede.td.crocram i
I 4
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
That is the court's language?
I 5
MR. SEAPAR:
A summary of it.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There was an earlier sentence 7
that Peter was alluding to:
The Commission would not continue 1
8 to license reactors if it did not have reasonable confidence 9l that the wastes can and would be, in due course, disposed of 10 l safety.
Il COMMISSIONER AHEARME:
That is a defense of what we 12 are doing.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It is a view of the subject. I 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It may be appropriate, Vic, 15 but I think what it really is saying-is that we are interpret-1 46 ing the question as to whether or not are we acting responsibly l 17 or not, and our answer is, of course, we are acting responsibly' l
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It goes beyond that.
I i
19 l think it acknowledges that we have a certain responsibility l
20 here.
And I think we ought not to step back from that.
21 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
Well, fine.
I am not trying 22,
to step back from it.
I think the language that is being 1
23 1 quoted, though, I would read it as saying that we believe we 24 ;
are responsible, and we have acted responsibly, and if we Am ~ *was Recruts, lm f, _
25 didn' t believe so we wouldn' t be licensing --
i e
i
mte 17' 19 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It goes further.
It is not 2
giving the back of the hand to this cuestion_ about the connec-e-4 3.
tion between reactor licensing and waste disposal.
I 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 1 11 12 13 14 i
15 16 l
l 17 l
18 l
\\
19 20 21 i
22 23 l 24 Am
- 1eral Reporters, Inc. i 25 '
i i
l i
1495.03.1 20 J1 1
COVMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am not trying to do that.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I wasn't suggesting that 3
you were.
The Commission didn't simply sav, "So rry.
You 4
know, we see no link, and that is the end of it."
5 We said we did not think that the law required us 6
to make this a specific determination that was asked for in 7
the Commission.
3 MR. SHAP AR:
The Commission said two things:
They 9
were not legally required, but as part of the basis for their 10 dec is io n, they had enough confidence that a solution would be found.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me go on and ask the 13 next question, la Howard, do you interpret the Conm iss ion's previous 15 postion as saying, "Yes, there definitely should be a link?"
16 MR. SHAPAR:
I think that_is hard to answer, 17 because you can isolate any one of those factors.
The IS Conmiss ion didn't just rest on the law.
They had reasonable 19 confidence, at that time, that a solution would be found in a 20 t imely manner.
2i CO MMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But it also said that if it 22 d idn't.think so, it wouldn't be doing what it was doing, which 23 is an imoortant part of it.
24 COMMISSIONER AMEARNE:
Sut then. Victor, vour 25 answer would be that there should ce a link.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
1493.03.2 21 J1 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There is no ouestion that 2
there is a link.
The case that was decided'there was whether 3
there was a link in the law, specifically, and the answer is 4
that there wasn't.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Your answer would a,coear to 6
be that, one, yes, there definitely should be a linki and, 7
two, there is no llnk in the lawi and,' thr ee, we are 3
confident, based upon what we know, that although there is --
9 definitely should be a link -- that there is no reason 10 therefore not to go ahead license the reactor; is that 11 c o rre c t ?
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think I wouldn't cuite 13 put it that way, but I think the Commission clearly 14 acknowledged that there was a link; and th*ere is no cuestion 15 that the re is a link between. the licensing of reactors and the 16 question of waste disposal.
And I would, as I said, at a 17 m inm um, refer back to that decision.
13 Now, a lot has hacoened s ince then. and one might 19 want to re-examine just what it is, just how it is you want to 20 chrase it; but I don't think you can 21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But to refer back to the 22 opinion, we wouldn't want to rephrase it.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
de ll, t he s u-m a ry --
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think that is probably 25 right, but you may vent to say that it needs to get looked at ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
49. 03.'3 22 jl 1
again.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There has already been, in botn 3
versions, a citation of the Commission's statement anc the 4
court de c ision.
In the sta ff draf t.
there was sort of a 5
summary statement that said, in fact, the Commiss ion has a 6
commitment to reasse ss, and so on, and so on.
7 COMMI SSIONER GILINSKY:
I may not have read it 3
c a re fu lly.
I didn't think either version actually had it.
9 MR. SHAPAR:
You're r ight ; it doesn't.
ID CO MMI SSI ONER 3R ADFORD '
The citation of the Court 11 of Appeals decision is probably to a different page, being 12 cited for a different point.
It would be coincidence if the 13 same cuotation showed up that is being cited there.
14 CHAIR. VAN HENDRIE:
You had the Commiss ion -- what 15 was it? -- the Statement o'f Cons iderations on the Rule?
16 COVMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
That is what I was 17 waving around -- Denial o f Petit ion.
18 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
First of all, I agree witn 19 the general procesition that Vic stated, which is that the 20 Commission has already created a link.
I agree, that there 21 clearly is one ~.
I would go further and say, at least, that I 22 would have no' objection to a reasonably-framed.
23 l eg i sla t ive l y-c r e a t ive link, which. I take it, is the cuestion 24 really implicit in the IRG reouest.
25 I can imagine legislative provisions that would oe ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
1496.03.'4 23 jl I
very bad, and I can imagine legislative provisions that would 2
really amount to no more than a managenent p'lan.
At least, as 3
to the latter. I wouldn't have an ob j ect. ;n.
4 As NRC Commissioners, we are in a funny cosition, 5
because we can create and impose a link, as the Commission has 6
already done, by saying that it would continue to license in 7
the absence of confidence.
But we don't have to go for a 3
legislative link.
But the Commission has already forced it.
9 The only additional step. I would say, would be to 10 say that if were done reasonably in the legislation, we 11 wouldn't object to it.
12 COMMI55I0tER AHEARNE:
I think, acparently, we 13 could say that we already, the Commission -- at least, in the 14 past, you have already agreed that there is a link, a s Vic 15 saysd -- o f course, there is a link.
And.then, I think. I 16 it would appear that we have the -
_I gue ss our responsibility 17 would be what kind of a link?
Is there any more fornal link 13 required?
19 For example, one -- I am sure one cuestion that the 20 IRG might be asking us -- or someone might be asking us -- is 21 is there at some stage wnere that confidence that Vic 22 indicated, where it is no longer warranted?
23 Now, is this lack of warranted confidence to be 2d based upon evaluation of technical material, or is tnere some 25 year in which, if t7at technical informa tion or institutional ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
495. D3.'5 24 J1 1
development hasn't occurred, that we would conclude that it is 2
now at the stage where that confidence is no longer warranted?
3 to the latter, I wouldn't have an objection.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Hnward, you read -- it may 5
have been a part of this, in this document, that I was --
6 MR. SHAPAR:
The enclosure, which had the longer 7
version in it 3
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
He was reading the staff draft 9
language th a t attempted to cover that po in t.
10 COMMISSIONER SRADFORO:
It is the staff draft that says that this language here implies a commitnent to reassass 12 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Its bas is f or confidence.
14 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
That seems to me to be a fair statement.
It doesn't make a commitment in ter s of time 16 or significant change of information, I should think, 17 implicit in a statement like this, would ce a commitment of 13 e ither f rom time-to-time, or being presented with a 19 significantly dif fe rent f actual situation 20 MR. SHAPAR:
And you could cuote the language from 21 the prior decision.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it might be useful 23 to cucte the specific langua e.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would agree with that.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me see if I c a n --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
1495.03.6 25 jl COVMISSIONER OILINSKY:
I think it is hard to get 2
more specific than that, when you start talking abouty 3
details, be cause 4
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Because then we are Look ing a t,
5 you know, to sort out a rather major issue in a rather short 6
time here.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think that we ought not 3
to do le ss than we did a year ago or whenever tnat was.
9 CHAIRM AN HENDRIE:
Let me see if I can discern an 10 acceptable proposition that would cover that point of view.
11 Suppose we took the Ahearne draft, and on page 3, one follows 12 it down to the sentence, quo te, "Thus, from the legal 13 v ie w po in t, the law does not now require relationsh.ip between 14 waste disposal and r' actor licensing," quote.
15 Now, if we inserted at that point, " Howe ve r, the 15 Commission, in denying the NRDC petition, PRM-18, the 17 Comm i ss ion said," quote, and then cuoted it -- wo ul d tha t 13 cover? -- then quoted that li ttle caragraoh you have got,
19 would that cover the matter. Peter?
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: For my own part, I would go 21 somewhat further and say that I nad no objection to a 22 legislation regimen that was no more -- I don't know exactly 23 how I would phrase it -- but a reasonably-cons tit uted, 24 legislative link.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARME:
But the Co-mission could put ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, (202)347-3700
1495.03.7 26 J1 1
that kind of a link in itself1 couldn't it?
2 CO MMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I am not saying I wquid 3
require it.
4 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All I am saying is that I 5
guess I am not sure why you would be endorsing having the 6
Congress legislate a link when certain{y some pecole in the 7
Congress might say, "Comm issioner, your Commi ssion ha s 3
authority to esteolish that link.
Why are you coming back to 9
us?
If you think it is accropriate, why don't you do it?"
13 COMMISSIDNER BRADFORD:
I am not going to Congress.
.11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I spent last season arguing for 12 legislative blessing on things we were do ing or wanted to do.
13 COVMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The difference of my saying 14 that I think it is nece.ssary.. which'should in vo lve my go ing to 15 Congre ss, and saying that I have no ob jection to it is the 16 difference between the situation you.have hycothesized and the 17 one that is actually before us, which is the Congress has come 13 to us and said, "What do you think of this ?"
19 COVMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The Congress hasn't come to 2D us.
Right new we are on the IRG report.
21 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I understand, but the shoe 22 is, in f act, on the other foot.
We are shortly going to have 23 to te ll Congress wha t we think of tnis oroposition, and it 24 doesn't necessarily say that we want vou to do i For me, it 25 probably in vol ves saying in some way, if you do it right, we ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERSr INC. (202)347-3700
1495.03.3 27 jl I
have no objection to your doing it.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would assume that if 3
Congre ss does. things right we would never had, we would never 4
have any objection to it.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is probably true, but 6
on the other hand, one has to also state that on a given 7
provision there is good f aith established.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Although you would, for 9
yourself, be willing to go on and make comment about the 10 reasonably-f ashioned no ob lection, to reasonably-fashioned
.11 lengths, that wouldn't, from your standco int. be essential to 12 dealing with sort of the first thrust of the discussion here, 13 which was that you had some dLfficulty in saying that this was 14 a public policy issue, and we don't propose to take e 15 position.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Ihat is, I think, true.
I 17 would be inclined to pick up something on the order of the IS sentence -- nayce no t the exact wording -- that Howarc read 19 earlier, saying that the statement are now proposing to insert 20 does imply a commitment, from time to time, to rea sse ss.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
One could say, "Does," quote --
22 quote, "Does,'In f ac t, the Commission have a commi.tment to 23 rea sse ss " ouote?
24 COMMISSIONE.4 GILINSKY :
dhere does this cone from?
25 CHAIRMAN HEhlRIE:
This was the sta ff draf t.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
495.03.'9 28 J1 1
MR. SHAPAR:
An int eroretation of the Commission 2
dec is ion.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it is a correct 4
interpretation.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could you take a minute, 6
V.ic ?
This was what, a year ago, eighteen months ago?
Co uld 7
you take a minute and summarize the basis for that confidence?
3 CouMISSIONER GILINSKY:
At that time?
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Available docunents, what 11 we learned from the s ta f f -- I m e a n, some of these are 12 discussed in -- you know, in the Comm iss ion's opinion, and I 13 think that in many ways the situation has changed since then.
14 If nothing else, there is a lot more in f o rma t io n; and, you 15 know, maybe it is some thing that one wants to return to and 16 r e th ink.
17 COVMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So that it might be 18 acpropriate to be reasse ssing in the no t-to-d is t a n t future?
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would think that -- at 20 least the statement says here that there is a commitment to 21 reasse ss where we stand on this, and I think t na t -- ye s, I 22 think that we -dc need to return to it.
23 COMMISSIONER KE TINEDY:
Like now -- I am trying to 24 find out, you mean sort of like ir,e d ia t a lv -- t h a t is, in tne 25 next two or three months?
Or in the next y *ar or two ?
Or ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
29 1495.03.10 jl I
what sort of time frane are we talking about?
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't have a specific 3
date in mind for you, but it is just clear that the re is a 4
great deal information now.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And next year there will be 6
a great deal more. information tnan there is this year.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
"I might be s sub Ject that 3
we ought to speak to ceriodically.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is the imoo rt an t point, 10 as I see it, that it is en issue that should be revisited from 11 time to time.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The language 4n the staff draft 13 says commitment to reassess its basis for confidence, that a 14 solution will be found in light of ne'v data that are 15 develooed, and Congress, that has made in the federal program, 16 which says that as significant point _s in the data come in --
17 COMMISSIONER GIL.INSKY:
.1e may end up saying we 13 f eel a lot better aoout it this year or that we are concerned 19 this year.
20 COMMISSIGNER KENNEDYs or tnat.it comes out about 21 the same.
22 23 21 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, (202)347-3700
1495.04'.i 30 J1 i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The last cuestion from my 2
side on this partlcular issue, the basis for that confidence 3
-- this is summarized in the arguments made in that court 4
case?
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I am not sure.
At least 6
what we are rely.ing on. I think was summarized ---
7 MR. SHAPAR In the Commiss ion's dec is ion.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There is an item called 9
" Denial of Petition for Rulemaklng," which is several pages 10 of mostly legal argument, but there is a section at the end
.11 called " Policy Considera t ions."
12 CO MMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Feel free to denigrate it, 13 if you wish.
14 (Laughter.)
15 CO MMI SSIONER' BR ADFORD :
The policy considerations 16 are set forth, a nd --
17 CO MMISSIONER AHEARNE:
How about the substantive 13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
It seems to me that there was a 19 staff paper, a long list.
20 MR. SHAPAR:
A survey of the literature.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I suspect that some of that 22 would look diff erent today.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE e Could you give me 3 24 reference to that?
25 MR. CU NNINGHAM:
I can get you one.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
149'S.04.2 31
~
J1 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have some problems with 2
that proc eeding, in terms of -- if I were running such a 3
proceeding today, whether I would do it the same way.
I do 4
think that it represents the benchmark of the Commission 5
position.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Fine.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE Do I detect any sense that my 3
prior croposition might wash, that we go down from this ---
9 from a legal viewpoint, the law does not require a 10 relationship between. waste dis:csal and reactor licensinc," cericd.
11
- However, the Commission, in denying the NRDC petition, PRM-5012 12 say, cuote -- so you'll have the specific language --- and then 13 say, d.Therefore, in fact, the Commiss ion has a commitment to 14 reassess its basis for confidence that a solution will be 15 found in light of new data that are developed and progress 16 made in the Federal program, and end the item at that point."
17 I would buy off on that.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's fine with me.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I certainly would not ---
20 that, to me, would be progress from this -- whether I would 21
~ ant to -- but certa. inly your language up to the.re is fine.
22 My only question is whether I --
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In the absence of a table 24 counting objecticns, let me declare that to be. at least for 25 the moment, the consensus position. and if you need more ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
1495.04;3 32 jl 1
language, Pe te r, you might want a section on the bottom that 2
says, " Commission Bradford would also know with regard to 3
item so-and-so," and you can see if you wanted to devise that 4
sort of language.
5 Now, have the Directors fellowed this discussion?
6 MR. RATHSUN2 Yes, sir.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am not sure who I am.looking 8
at -- Sandy?
Dick?
Dennis?
Ken?
Howard?
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
John.
10 (laughter.)
~
.l i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE Are y.ou going to do the --
12 COMMI.SSIONER AHEARNE:
I mean, who is going to 13 actually end up doing it?
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Who would comp ile it?
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would assume -- I would 16 think the fast turnaround for the guys that are si.tting down 17 one floor below us.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think Cunningham ought to 19 be involved.
20 CHA IRMAN.HENDRIE:
NMSS is no.ving hastily to 21 disso.clat e themselves.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
When we finish this, they 23 may not wish to.
We have only dealt with one item, I think.
24 As I recall, there are 12.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's good progress.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
14d5.0I.4 J3 J1 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let me point out, at the 2
current rate, it will be just after breakfast tomorrow 3
morning, when the decision is made who shal: be dealing with 4
redraf ting this, unle ss we decide to take a dinner break. In 5
which case it will be noon.-
6 CDMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aare you a ssuming that we 7
continue to work with the four issues, or the 137 3
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think we will have to touch 9
the 13.
It may be 16, because yo u ha ve go t three or four that 10 you'll want to discuss.
.11 (Laughter.)
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Dinner tomo rrow.
13
( La ughte r. )
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I can remember heroic 15 afternoons when -- when, after an hour and a sentence, we 16 suddenly turned to -- and made enormous progress in a 17 relatively short time.
18 Could I advance to Roman.II, Arabic 2. NEPA 19 requirements discussion?
20 Let'; see, the differences here I hope are less of 21 a concern.
It seems to me, in fact, that John's draft hits 22 the main point, which is, you know, could you please gird up 23 your loins and suggest a specific way of coordinating the 24 agencies in their NEPA -- meeting their NEPA responsibilities?
25 The f urther po int in the sta ff draf t, about the AnE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
34 1495.04.5 jl I
range of alternatives. I suspect is just going to get beyond 2
IRG's --
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My conclusion of what the 4
staff had asked for was the IRG addressing what constitutes 5
a reasonable consideration of reasonable alternatives.
6 Although that would have been fine, had they gotten there, I 7
jus t don't think, in any reasonaole sense, they are golng to 8
be able to accomplish that.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I susp ect it will --
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was afraid it would
.11 dif fuse the major issue of what they could accomplish.
The 12 issue isn't in OPE's draft.
It says the second issue is they 13 need to cons.ider a range of alternatives In' the NEPA analysis.
14 That is not what the s'ta f f is a dd re ss ing.
15 I am not saying that you shouldn't cons.ider a range 16 o f alternatives, but the staff craft.is saying that the IRG 17 should address the question of what constitutes a reasonable IS consideratlon of reasonable alternatives.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Unless they are we ll in hand on 20 it.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I just don't tnink they will 22 get there.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't think they will make it 24 either.
Obviously. it is a thing you would like to have 25 settled, but -- f eelings up and.own the table?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
1495.04.6 35 J1 i
COVMISSIONER BRADFORD:
John's statement is fine to 2
me.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Jonn's statement is okay 4
with me on this one.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Three, Development of Criterion 6
and Standards -- John didn't put this in.
The sta ff dra.f t 7
choses the criteria standards on the bottom of page 3 of the 3
staff draft -- chooses the development of criteria and standards sections of note -- a certain amount of overlap 10 between ourselves and EPA.
11 Arguments for or against inclusion of the point?
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I will admit that I didn't 13 think that was an issue.
It was more that it appeared to me 14 that this was tak ing on the tone of a chastising of EPA; and 15 it appeared to me, from listening to Sob Minogue talking, that 16 we had been making some headway in our relationships with EP A.
17 And it didn't seem that this was the time then to turn around 18 and take a swipe at then.
19 CO MMI SSIONER KE NNEDY:
You are not objecting to the 20 point that is being made, but the tone in which it is being 21 made?
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The tone and the form, at 23 this stage, and I may be nisreading what Minogue is telling 24 us, but my impre ssion, f rom listening to him now a nuncer of 25 t imes in these meetings. is that we are making headway with ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
1495.04'.7 36 jl I
EPA, and that these problems are -- at least are in a track 2
where they seem to be more likely to be resolved.
3 COMMISSIONER KETIEDY:
My tho ught was - and I 4
.think you are absolutely right, that we do make prograss -- my 5
thought was that th e staff was trying he re to perhapc achieve 6
that wonderful world in which we wouldn't have to go through 7
tr.a t agonizing effort to get progress to get us to zero, which 8
is what all of this other discussion is abcut.
What they are trying to do is say, "Leok, f ellows,
10 the past has shown us some steps, early on in the game, to 11 eliminate these problems, so we won't ha/e to spend a great 12 deal of time and effort just trying to get to a position where 13 we can work effectively together."
And that takes both 14 decision at the Executive level of the government, A,
- and, 3,
15 acpropriate legislative language.
It is not easily achieved; 16 it is a serious problem.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess my sense is that it 18 is not going to be, and I don't think that the Execut ive is 19' going to propose to separate and take EPA out.
And I think 20 there are a lot of people who would object to that in Congre ss 21
-- our raising it at this time.
22 It s eems, to me, to have the strong possibility of 23 taking some steps out, backward, in this working relationship 24 with EPA.
That was just a judgment.
25 COMMISSIONER SRADFORD:
I think that that is a ACE -FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
1495.04.8 37 jl I
sensible aopralsal of the situation, in terms of making the 2
point in a way that suggests that EPA be reWoved from the 3
process.
4 The point may we_ll be worth making about the need 5
for coordination and concerns of scheduling, entirely apart 6
from whether it appears to have EPA at the end of it.
7 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I woul'd like to make a general 8
comment about a number of these issues that were brought up in 9
Commiss ioner Ahearne 's le tt er.
I think that we approached the 10 crafting of the letter for the Commission somewhat along the lines of Commissioner Ahearne, the rationale that went behind 12 the major reports.
l.3 I guess where we departed was that we weren't so 14 concerned with Mr. Schlesinger reading it so much as the IRG 15 people, who factored this into the final report, taking it 16 into account.
I think, also, that m_any o f the se i ssue s, or a 17 number of these issues we brought up, like the alternatives IS under NEPA, we.did not feel that IRG, in itself, could se.ttle.
19 But, at least we could flag this as a problem area 20 and get on record as it being a problem area, so that in 21 writing the final report that. would recognize the problem 22 areas, that would recognize that. things aren't peaches and 23 cream.
And some of these might perhaps have to be se.ttled by 24 legislation.
25 COVMI SSIONER AHEARNE:
But, D ic k, I think if that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, (202)347-3700
38 1495.04.9 jl 1
is what you want do, then one should say, "In addit ion, here 2
are some other items that, while recognizing cannot be 3
resolved in. the final IRG, a ttention ought to be indicated 4
tha t they aren't camaining problems."
5 M9. CUNNINGHAM:
That may we ll be.
Yes, that is 6
fine.
I just wanted to bring out why we had some of these 7
things in here.
And, as se veral of you have pointed out, the 8
purpose wasn't to chastise EPA, although it comes out sounding 9
like that.
10 But I think there should be some flank on this NRC-EPA problem, because it is a problem.
And I gue.ss I am 12 not so optimistic tha t it is going to be settled quickly in 13 any way.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think we ought to be 15 putting our efforts to trying to work it out, rather than try 16 to take on again the agrument of "Let's separate EPA out."
17 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That's true.
And if you are 18 working at it constantly --
19 CONNISIONER AHEARNE :
You wLil get a lot further 20 along from working at it constantly, that we don't turn around 21 in some other form, and say, "And the real solution is to get 22 them out of it."
23 MR. CUNNINGHAM :
I agree with that; but to the 24 extent that it is a problem. I think '.ve ought to recognize it 25 and even recogniza that we working on it.
Just taking EPA out ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
49 $.04.' 10 39 jl I
of the pic ture won't wash.
I didn't g' t the impre ssion 2
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
e 3
that that is what you were saying.
4 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I didn't think that was our 5
intent, but it might come out sounding like that.
6
_COMMISSLONER KENNEDY:
The language could stand a 7
little improvement in this regard, but even as it.is, I didn't 3
get the impression that you were saying, "Get the EPA out,"
9 only be sure at the beginning to clarify, as best we can, what 10 the relationship shall be, rather than leave that for a period
.l l of two years of negotiation with all of the attendant and 12 inherent misunderstandings along the way.
1.3 That is good government.
I would be for including 14 something along the lines of the staff draft, but rec ommend 15 tha t it be redrafted to take out any tones which suggest 16 chastising EPA and put it in a somewhat le ss personal way, 17 highlighting.the duplication, the potential for duplication, 18 and the problens that it creates, and the desirability of 19 trying to address the tssue and resolve it advance, rather 20 than leaving it for endless discussion.
21 22 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
CR 1495 40 WEITLO.CK t-5&6 mte}
That is great for the bureaucrats who get to do the discussing, but not much else.
2 3l COMMISSIONER AHEARMF: But Dick, in the addressing l
of the duplication, would you want us to say it is the duplica-4 ti n that is the problem?
One resolution to duplication is to 5
1 eliminate an NRC role.
That would eliminate duplication.
I 6
I thought part of the problem they are focusing on is that EPA 7
has been so slow to act that we are finding outselves in a g
i problem of having to try to take steps in the absence of the 9
EPA taking action, and concern that they are not going to i
10 take action in time, and when they finally do we may have to 11 redo what we are doing.
And so we are trying to get them to 12 mo ve o n.
g CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Beyond that, the staff draft goes ja considerably beyond that.
It asks for two general things.
Onej 15 16 of them is that IRG recognize that there is a mismatch in the l
schedule, sort of the now built-in schedule to these things, l
j7 to recognize that mismatch and to declare that it is all right 18 j9 for NRC to get out in front, i
But beyond that, it says, we recommend that the IRG 20 look at what EPA is doing and consider whether it shouldn't 21 l
I tell the EPA to get off that "best available technology" kick 22 and get back to general environmental-- health and environ-23 24 l mental protection standards, the sort of things that I guess on.
Am " *mI Remnm, Inc. l l
25 ! the -- you know that when the radiation-setting authority went ; ~
l i
t
41
.te 2 over there, the general standards-setting for health protection 1
2 and so on, that was always seen here as a very general sort of 3
a role.
4 The EPA would say:
Ambient standard, 25 rem to an 5
organ is about all we ought to let folks get, and then leave 6
it up to the NRC to see how to get there.
But in fact, the EPA waste standards are going considerably beyond that and 7
into assorted methods discussion and getting down to a level 8
l l
9 where I would expect our people would think that they are 10 !
into getting very close into citing the specific licensing 11 conditions.
And there has always been that difference in 12 point of view and ourselves.
And what the staff draft says is:
13 IRG, get in and tell those people to back off.
14 COMMISSIONER KEUNEDY:
I guess "those people" ought 15 to include us.
16 CHAIRMANCHENDRIE:
I was going to say, if I thought l
ButIthinkl 17 it had much chance of success I would vote for it.
l 18
-- I just can't see the IRG telling EPA to do it a different i
19 way.
20 I see a shaking of the head.
21 MS. FUCIGNA:
I don' t think we went that far.
We 22 asked them to evaluate the approach.
It might be, even af ter i.
23 the evaluation, they should do it that way.
24,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This discussion has put it Am-FewW Reorters, lm:.,
25 !
on the record.
i l
mte 3 l
42 i
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I guess there are people who 2
read our transcripts, yes.
3ll (Laughter.)
4 COMMISSIONFR AHEARNE:
My reading of it was :
We 5
don't think what they're doing is right and so, IRG, you ought 6
to really take a look at it.
7 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We can fix-the tone.
But the point 8
is that there is a problem here and it is going to continue.
I 9
And even working with EPA, we can make our progress in some j
10 '
areas and lose in others.
But it is a problem that will 11 continue.
If NRC doesn ' t go on the record, then I think people 12 might have the right to assume that it is okay, even if IRG 13 can't fix it.
i i
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Are you saving that you don't l I
15 think that the current approach in trving to work out the 16 problems is going to work?
I i
CU' NINGHAM:
It hasn't been real successful thus.
17 MR.
N 18 far.
i 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
But Minogue keeps telling us j
l 20 that things really are getting better.
l 21 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We are working on several different i
22 kinds of problems.
One is the schedules.
I don't see EPA l
23 l changing the schedules for waste management.
That has nothing i
i 24 to do with the overlap so much as just the scheduling Aa Few i amonm. inc f 25 1 involved.
l
!~
i
mte 4 43 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is that because EPA is not 1
interested in working the problem or they are working just as 2
hard as they can and --
3l 1
4l MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think it is a matter of resources j and priorities.
But that is one kind of a problem.
The other 5
kind of a problem that we have been having arguments with them 6
for years is the question of generally applicable standards, 7
as opposed to the site-specific standards that they come out 8
with.
9 l
p) ;
Their site-specific standards are based on best 11 available technology.
That is a problem that has been continu-12 l; ing.
That is the one I think Minogue is talking about.
I i
There is another kind of problem with us being ahead '
13 ja of them in the regulations, as indeed we must to meet DOE i
15 schedules.
EPA can come out with standards that not only have l l
16 different numbers, but don ' t fiu our regulatory regime.
For i
17 example, this thing under the Clean Air Act where they go for i
-- there is a cuestion of emissions standards, when we are 93 i
i 19 in the process of revising our current standards to meet EPA 20 standards that might be out of date already, based on the I
emissions standards.
l 21 22 There are all these kinds of problems.
We work on 23 some of them, and while we might make progress in some areas, 24,
in other areas it is not working so well.
We are just starting' Ac.4.o.,.incorte,s.inc.!
I 25 on the waste management ones.
We have worked with EPA on the i-I t
mte 5 44 fuel cycle ones and that is still f ar from resolved.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Of course, the Clean Air 2
Act Amendment just went in a year aco.
3 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
But it presents significant problems 4
f r us in terms of the way our regulations are structured.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My only point is it seems that 6
there -- obviously both agencies have to get used to how to 7
w rk within the law.
8 l
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That's right.
j 9
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There are problems that have 10 !
been in existence for many years when there is a new law.
ij MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What are the chances of trying --
13 this might be a n item which, were it to be included, would not j ja be to.' comment on the four particular areas.
But after you 15 get through the four particular areas, we should also note l
16 l
that -- that there are a certain number of problems which do 17 l
not appear to us to be easily solveable between ourselves and 18 l
19 our good friends at EPA, and so on.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would like to make sure 20 I
I that Minogue.
j 21 i
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I just created -- that is 22 Hendrie A.
23 l i
24 j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would like to have Minogue's:
Am? Mwat Reconers, inc. ! comments on any remaining croblems that we want to hichlight 25 I
I I
i
mte 6 45 with EPA.
He is the guy that we have essentially tasked to be j
2 our lead point man in negotiating.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would be delighted to have Robert's comments on this.
4 5
Dennis, do you want to try to work with Dick and 6
Sandy and anybody you can get your hands on, although I suspect 7
none of these people will take to you -- but there is the staf f direct language which comes fairly squarely to some of the issues, 8
l 9
at least the parts of them that are in the waste management, 10 1 along the lines that I started out suggesting, to s ee if you 11 could back a little bit away?
12 MR. RATHBUN:
A supplementary point?
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIF:
Yes, rather than one of the four 14 centrals.
And then let's see what it looks like in draft form.
15 Would that be okav?
16 COMM :SSIONER AHEARNE :
Please check with Minogue.
l t
17 MR. RATHBUN:
I will.
I 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I guess it looks to me like the l
19 tone really is more in the nature of, we are noting a problem 20 area, rather less than we are saying, look, IRG, plunge in and l
l solve this for us.
I just despair of any sort of a cleancut 21 i
22 solution coming out of it.
I think, indeed, if we ever make i
23 any headway with it, it will be by virtue of the EPA staff and 24 l our staff coming to some kind of workable agreement.
And if Ace-Federst Reporters, Inc.
25 ; there is to be legislation, why, I would be very surprised if l
I
ate 7 46 I
anything would ever move in a legislative line in which we and 2
EPA were not in pretty wholehearted agreement.
I don ' t think 3
that route is really clear.
4 Now, could I then lunch forward to Item 4, Roman II, 5
Arabic 4, discussion of licensing determinations.
Question :
6 Is the Commission amiable with noting that we have been tasked 7
by the Congress, by the law of the land, to study the issue and 8
we aren't going to know what we think until we have completed 9'
that study?
10 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think John's comment is 11 fine.
But it seers.to me that we have to again say what our 12 position is as last recorded.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Ape you meaning to imply 14 that -- just let me make sure -- are you implying that, there-I.
15 fore, even though the study isn' t completed, you know what our 16 position is?
17 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think Vic is just saying it --
j 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It will be.
We have a 19 position.
l l
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You took a position in the 21 past.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Right.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But we have reopened the issue, 24 ;
correct?
Vic, we are re-examining it.
Me were directed to sc..Fensi a.conm. ine. j 25 l re-examine it and we don't know where we will come out.
1 I
i I
I
mte 8 47 e
COMMISSIONER AHEARNF:
Would you want the IRG to say, j
if they are now down to their short strokes and they have just a very narrow place to put what is the NRC's position, is it, 3
I they are re-examining their position because they have a task 4
study, or, here is the NRC position?
5 COMMISSIONER KFNNEDY:
The NRC position as of such and 6
such a date was, however, because of the requisite request from 7
Congress, the NRC is reassessing its position.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't see any reason to be 9
10 ; limited to the one sentence.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We have a position, we are 11 re-examining it.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Here is the position we have 13 taken, which is on the record, and the Congress has directed us ja to take another look at this, which we are doing.
l 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There is a poignancy to that, 16 since it was the Congress that we offered the last position j7 to.
18 19 (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It cuts both ways.
You can 20 21 say that, since you are re-examining your views, what is the value of the previous position.
But when you have a position 22 which you've stated to the Congress, and if you are not men-23 24 tioning it here, if you are rejecting that position -- I think Aa-Heral Aeoorters, Inc.
25 the right way to deal with it is to mention both:
This is the
mte 9 48 1
position we expressed to the Congress, the Congress asked us to 2
examine the matter, and --
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Probably if I had voted for 4
that position in the past, I would feel strongly about that.
5 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
For one thing, ue have to be clear 6
or what that Comnission position was.
We had a staff paper.
7 There was June 14th testimony that gave the position.
8 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
That's what I was referring l
9 to.
l 10 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But there is a later l
11 do cumen t.
12 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
There were cuestions and answers in I
13 the course of the testimony, questions asked by Congress and l
l 14 answers provided by the individual Commissioners.
l 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You_are referring to the l
i 16 licensing of new tanks and so on?
I l
i 17 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
As I remember, there were two 19 Commissioners having one view and two having another.
I don't 20 knew that that rises to a level that needs to be included here. I 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think the collegial testimony 22, is the only statement that can be regarded as a Ccmmission l
23 position on those matters.
Individual comments, even though 24 mine have the merit of a real grasp of the subject and the om a.oonm. ine. l Ac. c wisdom of the years --
25 j l
l l
l
49
.te 10
- - 5 (Laughter.)
MR. TRUBATCH:
Follow-up cuestions were responded to 2
in a collegial manner.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would go light on that.
They 4
reiterated a little bit.
I think you ought to stick to the 5
testimony.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
Based on a number of recent 7
issues, I would be leery of including a full collegial review of 8
cuestions.
9 COMMISSIONEP GILINSKY:
Since you asked the cuestion, 10 !
what is the Commission view, if you are specifically asked on 11 that point, then I think it is appropriate to indicate two 12 Commissioners said it one way, two another.
When we are giving 13 the highlights, I would summarize and stick to the testimony ja as presented.
I think that covers the major issues.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What about the point made at 16 the bottom, the last sentence at the bottom of the page 4 of j7 the staff's draft, and at the top of the page?
18 i
l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think the fact that there were 19 regulatory procedures not involving licensing is a very importan :
20 aspect of that.
Otherwise, you core away with the idea that 21 the Commission is reaching out and is going to license every-22 23 l thing in town.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would suggest that that 24 Acm/ deral Reoorters, Inc. !
point you might want to also have factored into it.
25 I
i
mte 11 50 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The fact that that sort of an ption was not part of the IRG options, if that is correct, is 2
indeed a very important one.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The issue that they were addressing the three options was what level of licensing, what 5
ught to be covered by licensing.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Those are two different cuestions.
7 You just asked cuestion one and cuestion two, and they are g
different.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The degree of licensing --
10 I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is the second cuestion --
jj CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Then I can't tell.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Then I think it is the second j3 cuestion, the degree of licensing coverage.
j4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIF:
Anyway, but --
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What the IRG's issue here is i
16 three options to define the degree of licensing coverage.
j7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What are they, since you have it j
18 i
j9 handy there?
l' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Status cuo, extension of NRC 20 licensing, authority recuiring new legislation to incorporate 21 licensing of new DOE facilities, or disposal of wastes or 22 high-level wastes; and the third is a further extension of NRC 23 24 licensing authority to incorporate all DOE, post-licensing Ac..
4.,.i
- n. cort rs, inc. l facilities and interim storage, as well as disposal of wastes
_l 25 4
i l
i
mte.12 s
from both defense and non-defense programs.
j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The staff comment is precisely 2
correct:
They do not include the very important aspect of the 3,
1 Commission's recommendations.
This thing says you don't license, 4
you license 1 through 4, you license 1 through 10.
5 COMMISSIONER AHFARNE:
The staff comment is?
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The Commission's position is there 7
are some things we ought to license, one; and, two, there are 8
some things for which a full licensing regime in all its glory 9
10 ! is just inappropriate, but that some level of reculatory over-view and consultation, with the DOE as the sponsoring 11 j;
department,, would in our view have benefit.
It would not be a formal licensing process.
It would not have hearings.
It would 13 not have license amendments that have to be dealt with on the ja record.
15 l
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It would be informal.
l 16 i
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It would be a technical review.
j7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The distinction, as I see it, 18 i
19 is that there is no point in having a proceeding to decide whether something ought to exist that you can't eliminate in j
20 l
l I
21 any case, and so the licensing proceeding is where you usually decide whether something ought to co on that would not other-22 23 lwise go on.
24 j So waste tanks, for example, present a different kind Ac.e -we a.co, ten. ine. l 25 l of problem.
On the other hand, NRC regulatory oversight can i
t
te 13 52 take a variety of forms.
We didn't get explicit as to how this w uld be done, but -- and it may be that we have among ourselves 2
different views of just what thae would entail.
But at a 3
minimum, there would be some kind of an auditing of the 3
existing management.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEAENE:
Did you address, should this 6
be through regulation legislation?
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There would have to be some 8,
legislation.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Not necessarily.
10 ;
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Not necessarily.
It could be 11 by agreement between --
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Between the agencies, 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
DOE, for example, could j
ja re uest that kind of advice and counsel from us, as indeed is 15 done in certain other circumstances.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What I'm groping at 17 l
COMMI6SIONER GILINSKY:
We were not talking about a j
18 i
39 voluntary rystem.
CC MMISSIONER AHEARNE :
That's what I'm trying to get 20 at.
If it is an involuntary system --
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We are talking about a system 32 i
l 23 ; in which there was NRC concurrence on actions.
i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Doesn't that recuire either 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 legislation or --
t.
mte 14 53 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I believe it does.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If it was going to be 2
involuntary --
3l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I use the word " involuntary" l
4 in the sense that --
5 COMMISSIONER AEFARNE:
I understand that.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY 1 If it is going to be a 7
mandatorv thing, then it ought to be mandated in legislation.
g COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would think that it has to 9
10 l be done through legislation.
jj COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That certainly didn' t come through to me in the staff draft.
You are saying, then, that 12 the issue is that there are, in addition to the legislation for 13 j4 licensing, that we are recommending legislation, but it is 15 non-licensing, but it is still legislation?
MR. SHAPAR:
It is in the option of review short of l
16 j7 formalizing.it.
It could be b-standards.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are skipping the stage 18 j9 at which you would approve the existence or the conduct of the 20 activity, since there is nothing you can do.
I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I understand that.
I am trying 21 i
1 to see what do we recommend now.
That was in the June 14th 22 23 j testimony?
l 24 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
%ce-Federas Reporters, Inc.
25 '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Asking for legislation.
r
mte 1,5 54 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:
For the non-licensing --
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We were commenting.on 4
Senator Hart's bill, which would have put it into a licensing 5
mode.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We said a preferable course 7
would be this kind of a mode.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Which is still legislation.
i l
9 COMMISSIONER KFNNEDY:
Yes.
10 I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
For existing facilities.
And II there was a dif ference of view on what would you do with 12 something that was new, where you are starting from scratch.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
Sq that, then, -- am I correct !
14 that that is still' a further explanation of what the Commission 15 had endorsed in the June 14th testimony?
Is that correct?
l 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm trying to give the gist 17 of what we were saying.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think it is appropriate -
.I 19 didn't.get that from that short comment.
I just didn't under-20 stand the background of that.
I think it is appropriate, in 21 the referencing what the Commission's position was, as estab-22 lished on June 14 th, to make those points and then go on to 23 say that we are reassessing on the basis of --
l i
2#
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes, sure.
Aa Fewal Recorten. Inc l
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, I agree that the i,
I
mte,16 55 regulatory processes do not constitute licensing.
I thought it was the voluntary consultation, which did not mean very much 2
t me, was not a major issue.
3 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you cite the hearing.
4 MR. RATHBUN:
Yes.
l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
and refer to it as the Commission 5
collecial testimony at the hearing before so-and-se on such-and-6 such a date, to make sure it isn't the whole blasted hearing 7
record that we are blessing, and then note that the authoriza-8 tion bill recuires us to conduct a study.
And the Commission --
9 what should we say?
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There is a paragraph here.
The ij staff 's draf t seems to say it.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
How does that strike you, 13 l
John, the last paragraph on page 5 of the staf f 's draf t?
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought I said the same j
15 16 thing.
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yours was much shorter and it 17 i
didn't talk about previous testimony.
It just said it would l
18 l be I
I inappropriate to comment prior to completion of the study.
jo And now the thrust is rather tUtat the Commission may want to 20 i
I l
reassess.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I assume that it may not only 22 23 l want to, but we will reassess.
l l
24 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I believe that is the law of the i
Ace 8=deral Reporters, Inc.
25 j land at the moment.
l l
l-l I
ate 17 56 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, I thought so.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That creates a fair likelihood of 3
it occurring, when the study is finished, this Commission will 4
reassess, if that is sort of the thrust.
5 COMMISSAJNER AHEARNE:
Sure.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, in deference to my -- well, 7
everybody's schedule, I will advance to 5, Institutional Issues.
8 (Whereupon, at 4:27 p.m.,
Commissioner Gilinsky left i
9 the room. )
l 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The staff shows the Executive 11 Planning Council and recommends that the IRG groups explicitly 12 include more details of the Council's planning process, speci-13 fically describing the means for maintaining the Commission's 14 independent regulatory role.
I guess I don't find a strong i
15 need to express all of that as a major point in this letter.
l l
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We are in charce or main-l 1
l 17 taining our own independence.
l l
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If push comes to shove, we can justi 19 say we won't play, and take our marbles and go home.
20 And with regard to having the IRG define thu Council l
I 21 in more detail, what the Council is going to do and how, that l
22, might be nice, but it may not be practical.
It doesn't strike l
l 23 l me as --
i 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It doesn't trouble me very
,m.. ~. l 25 much.
But just one minor aspect, and that is that I wonder if l
l I
I i
I i
te 18 57 the average reader of this report understands that if we don't 3
like the rules we won't play.
I suspect the average person, 2
even the average institution outside of government and some 3
inside it, don ' t understand that.
As a matter of fact, I know 4
they don't.
They don't believe such an agency exists.
I have 5
trouble, difficulty recognizing that myself sometimes.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There is an explicit statement 7
that says, in view of its status as an independent regulatory g
9 agency, the NRC's participation does not constitute any endorse,
i i
10 ! ment to the reports of the findings or recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think the point is well stated.
ij Then I will plunge ahead to 6, Liability.
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
One thing, not that it is 13 directly part of 5, but on a point that John made last.
I have ja i
15 ne point, to suggest a sentence that would go ahead of any I
i 16 letter we sent, reiterating that hereto we will be involved in f
this process on an ongoing basis for years to ccme, and that L7 our comments made during this 30 or 60-day comment period gg I
pp shouldn' t be taken as binding Commissions in the future on issues that have been taken under consideration.
20 i
I don't want to run into a situation later on where i
21 i
somebody says:
You can't say this because you said this, 22 i
commenting on the IRG report.
23 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think that is an excellent i'
b-Eedefal R000ft9f1, Inc, !
point to make, for the very reason that I suggested earlier.
I l 25 t
i 1
I
mte 19*
58 e-6 am not sure everybody understands that.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We will provide the language.
2 0.WSSIOER MN :
More and more people may be 3
understanding it.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The point --
5 MR. TRUBATCH:
Does that mean the entire staff 6
recommendation or only the-second paragraph?
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The first paragraph involves 8
S ta te involvement.
9 I
MR. TRUBATCH:
Correct.
10 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNF:
It seerts to be --
11 COMMISSIONER BPADFORD:
I had a different point on 12 state involvement.
Let me just flag it.
It is in the thing 13 that I distributed before the meeting.
ja CHAIRMAno HENDRIE:
With 13 agencies in the IRG, 15 it doesn't surprise me that not every initiative, pertinent 16 initiative in all of those agencies are noted with due dignity l
j7 and trumpet blasts in the IRG report.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me be clear.
I am not j9 saying when they were.doing this report they shouldn't have 20 mentioned it.
I am trying to say when we go in with our final 21 response, we are hopefully trying to get some things changed.
22 I If you mix the small with the large, you really have a very 23 i
24 {lgood chance of just losing and not getting any addressing of theI Ace-Nef al Reporters, Inc. I larger.
25 !
e
te 20 59 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Are you assuming that their 1
2 discriminatory level is low?
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think, as you also know, l
I 4
Dick, that we have both had a lot of experience through these 5
processes.
If you don't discriminate small and large, and you 6
are supposedly the one that really understands, it makes it 7
easier for them not to if they don't want to.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If they don't want to.
9 COMMISSIONER AHFARNE:
Yes.
10 !
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Okay.
l 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Unless somebody objects, I propose 12 to wash out the institutional section.
13 COMNISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me ask about Item No.
2.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
At some point, either at the end l
i 15 of OPE's list or in the middle, if we-need to break, we are i
i 16 going to plunge into yours.
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Just that that would be an i
18 institutional issue.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
6, Price-Anderson.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is the point here that the I
21 IRG's legal analysis might be wrong?
22 MR. SHAPAR:
No.
What they are saying, in effect, is 23 they have discretion, DOE has discretion under Price-Anderson 24 to extend it.
Act-'
wai Reporters, Inc.
25 '
' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
Th t DOE has discretion.
I l
i
te 21 60 MR. SHAPAR:
That both DOE and NDC has Price-Anderson authority.
2 The staff comments are pointing out that maybe in the 3
context of the waste disposal -- this was a hot issue when the 4
DOE went out to New Mexico, and maybe Price-Anderson ought to 5
be looked at, that there would be no compulsory waivers for this 6
kind of discretionary Price-Anderson, or why should there be a 7
limitation of liability here, since you are dealing essentially 8
with a government activity.
Those sorts of auestions.
The 9;I I thrust of the staff comments were:
Do you want to think about ja j 11 some of these things?
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Part of the difficulty I was 12 having in addressing that is that it seems to be a germane 33 comment for DOE to be concerned with.
I was having some ja difficulty understanding why it was a _ big issue to us.
15 MR. SHAPPR:
Both DOE and NRC have authority under i
16 i
tne Price-Anderson Act to extend, if it is a licensed j7 j
peration.
18 MR. TRUBATCH:
To the extent that that a DOE 19 facility is licensable by the NRC.
20 I
MR. SHAPAR:
One or the other.
We face this problen 21 with the breeder, as a matter of fact.
22 23 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Has the Cotmission in the past
}
24 l taken a position on Price-Anderson?
i Ace ~ *eret Reoorters, Inc. l 25 MR. TRUBATCH:
Ahere is a statement in the Federal l
I,
te 22 61 Register in respect to overlapping authority, we would extend Price-Anderson.
2 MF. SH APAR:
But only for reactors, not in the context 3
I of waste disposal.
So the thrust of the comments is:
Do you i
4 wa t t think about some of these questions, and that's it.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I have no objection to 6
including it.
7 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It sounds like a lower-level 8
comment.
I would be ready to declare that this comment is in 9
I f act not a policy matter in the sense that a number of the 10 !
others are and could legitimately be included in the staff-to-11 staff transmission.
12 What do you think?
13 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I would be prepared to put it ja i
in a staf f-to-staf f transmission.
I don't know if I would say 15 l
that it was a policy matter of some portent.
l 16 1
l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Could we understand, are we j7 1
}
dealing with a paper which will be only a single letter without ;
18 i
l i
19 any attachment?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, sir.
20 l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We are?
Well, I didn't know I
21 i
,2 l that.
This is going to be an awful long letter.
l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The single letter will note in it 23 1 that detailed. comments will be supplied directly by the i
24,
i Ac.e er.i aeoonen. inc. ;
25 ' staff.
l
mte 23 62 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But it will not be in the form 2
that the staf f draf t here is, which has a letter which covers, 3! then, a series of comments?
I 4
CHAIRMMI HENDRIE:
No, the format was to have it as a 5
letter.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, that, I '.think, is 7
unfortunate, because that is either going to make it a very 8l long letter or, in my view --
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It depends on how many things you j
10 I would like to include in it.
Il COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are you talking about two 12 different things?
There is a staff document of 20-some pages.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is different.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It would be many more than that, 15 I suspect.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Would you want to put this in 17 there?
18 CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would prefer having it in 19 there to having it in here, simply on the basis that John has 20 been pointing out all along, that we really want to put what we 1
21 care about most in here, and this is just in the category of, 22 this is something that you may wanr to think about.
I 23 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I am confused now, because we talked i
24 l about the EPA question as being a lesser one.
A=
w w num men.incj 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
No, that was --
i
te 24 63 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The EPA comment is part of the letter.
But rather than being one of John's one, two, three, 2
3l four, or how many he ends up with, you go through that in the l
letter, and then there is a paragraph that says that we would 4
also like to note that we have some problems over here, more or 5
less as follows.
And it is less an admonition to the IRG to do 6
something about it than just saying we are noting it.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is the ideal framework for!
g dealing with the Price-Anderson matter.
9 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The Price-Anderson seems to me to 10 !
be a sufficiently low-key sort of thing so that it just doesn't 11 mcrit going in the Commission letter.
For my part, I would be 12 perfectly willing to authorize the comment to be made as part 33 of the staff comments, specifically authorizing this comment to ja be made, the one in the staff draf t.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
As it is here.
16 i
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or if they want to supplement it,
{
17 they can.
18 I
MR. SHAPAR:
With minor changes.
j9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If that's okay, let us charge ahead l 20 l
to 7.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Okay.
Commercially operated 22 low-level waste sites.
Arguments for and against?
23 COMMISSIONER AHEADNE :
Can I ask two cuestions?
When 24 Am FMwW Regeners, inc.
25 you -- who would have the management and control?
Would we?
i i
te 25 64 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
S ure.
j MR. CUNNIMGEAM:
We would have regulatory control, but 2
it isn't clear what they mean by management control.
There is 3
i I ownership of the site.
There is operation of the site.
And 4
there _s regulatory --
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Why is it of a very high order 6
of importance to us?
7 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I guess the problem I have -- and f
8 l
my own opinion is that the low-level waste proposal is in a j
9 l
l 10 I pretty sad state of confusion right now.
There is probably 11 going to be a shortage of waste disposal.
People are holding back.
12 I think the IRG has an opportunity, because they are 13 ja a little more specific, to start bringing some order to this 15 business, and people can start thinking about where they are 16 going to fit into this whole picture.
Right now, the states l
l 17 have to own burial grounds because the Federal Government won't j 18 own them, and they are recuired to be owned by the federal or 19 state government.
The states don't know where they stand in the future 20 21 on this, and the commercial operators don't know where they l
l 22 stand, and we don't know.
I think the IRG would miss an oppor-i 23 tunity here to do some good.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am not criticizing in the i
Am-FMwal Rnumrs. Inc. '
{
25 sense that isn't something the IRG would help if they did.
I am!_
\\
mte 26 65 trying to figure out why it is of great importance to us.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I can't think of a real good answer
! for that.
3 I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
The second cuestion, which is 4
on the second part, which is simi<1ar.
We make a point in the staf f response on that.
The commercial cuestion.
Reports should justify the elimination of the commercial role.
Why?
7 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I have no answer for that.
g l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would recommend that this 9l 10 lmight be another candidate for including, less the last two sentences, the staff draft as it is in the staff's comments.
jj COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That would be fine.
g CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would do that.
Tell me again.
j3 What about the last?
g
- UE the last --
15 I
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The last two sentences.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let the commercial industry p
a se dat gesdon.
18 I
COMMISSIONER AHFARNE:
Right.
j9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
8, Cost Recovery.
That just 20 strikes me as an eligible candidate for staff comments.
g COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Agreed.
22 ONSSIOER MND:
I agree, but I would add to R l 23 !
1 24 l the thought that the IRG report as it stands, while making all Ac-s.o.<. s.oorters, inc. !
l I sorts of haphazard statements in other respects, it says flatly 25 l
l
mte 27 66 that these costs, the full costs, should be recovered and passed n to the ratepayers.
That al. ways sees to me to be a topic on 2
3l which I would have a peculiar sensitive history, but to be the responsibility of state regulatory commissions.
And, while 4
I think most -- in principle, most would pass it on, I think the 5
IRG w uld be better served to say, as far as the Federal 6
Government is concerned, it should operate on a full cost 7
recovery principle, and the question of whether or not the g
ratepayers end up paying for it is one for the state commissions 9
to decide.
10 I COMMISSIONER KENNFDY:
That is absolutely right.
And
- j in the staff comment they might make that note.
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But I would urge the staff 13 to consider expanding the comment.
ja i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Your point being that, speaking 15 as a former state regulatory, you believe it is up to the 16 states to decide how it should be passed?
j j7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right, as a practical 18 matter.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
TP-t i.s their legal responsi-20 bility.
21 I
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
As a practical matter, I 22 w uld be hard-pressed to think of a situation where it wouldn't 23 24 l be passed on.
But it doesn't seem to me that the IRG report Ace-Feceral Reporters, inc. l should be deciding state rate cases.
l 25 I-I, I
mte.28 67 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Excellent.
j Item 9 is included as Item 2 in the Ahearne draft.
2 Are there any substantive differences?
This is one, John, 3
I where your draf t is longer, like two lines, than the original.
4 I daresay it is clearer thereby and I am prepared to vote for 5
iU*
6 COM1ISSIONER AHfARNE:
It is primarily because in 7
reading the summary workup plan, I suspect not only that most 8
9l people only read the document, I think most people only read the l
10 l summaries.
And I notice in there that we are committed for having the technical requirements for licensing high-level 11 waste repositories in 1979.
And I was just trying to make sure 12 that that wasn't a misunderstood item of what we wculd actually 13 have ready.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Could we have a coment?
15 l
l MR. BUNTING:
It will not be the technical criteria.
l 16 l
j7 :
I think it is misleading.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Does the comment that Commissioner 18 I
19 Ahearne -- his draft, does that --
MR. BUNTING:
It deals fairly.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It deals fairly with the issue, 21 by George.
22,
i Gaughter.)
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, would you please put in about 24 ;
Ace 8=1 erst Recorters, Inc. I I
25 the middle of that, a couple of lines below the middle, put a l
mte 29 68 "that" between "it is unlikely" and " specific technical criteria. "
I Then I will endorse the whole thing.
2 e-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Fine.
3 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am about to turn to Commissioner 3
Bradford 's paper.
But before I do, I want to go back to 5
Roman II, Item 5, and say -- this is on the institutional issues 6
thing, the items that were ticked in the staff draf t on 7
institutional issues.
For myself, I have absolutely no objec-g tion with the staff making those comments, making that comment l
9 l
10 ; in their package.
I On.the other items that we have chosen not to include 11 I
in the Commission letter, why, we thought that reasonable 12 comments, and they said to the staf f, why don' t you put these,
13 appropriately modified, in your section.
I wonder if you would ja like to go back and extend that offer, I guess, to Item 5?
15 COMMISSIONER AHEAI.NE :
Yes.
Are you saying that you 16 want the staff to say that the IRG report should include more 17 I
details of the planning process?
l 18 l
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I -- if the staff would like to 19 suggest that, why, I don't have much worry about it.
l 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I have no problem with the 21 staff suggesting it.
I wouJ d have difficulty with the staff 22,
carrying the message that we believe that the IRG report should 1
23 be held up until more detailed analysis of the planning 24 An mme nwonm. In.
l e
25 l process.
i i
i i
mte.30 69 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't think I would want to see it held up, and I doubt it will be held up.
2 3l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think it would be unrealistic I
to expect -- I don't think that that is --
4 (Whereupon, at 4 :47 p.m., Commissioner Giiinsky 5
returns to the hearing room.)
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We recommend that the report, as 7
practicable, include more detail.
Or, if you decide not to g
f make the comment --
9 10 ll MR. CUNNINGHM :
If I may, Mr. Chairman, one other point, and I am going back again.
We discussed NEPA and dropping jj 12 lthis one under NEPA alternatives.
This is Item 2 on Dennis Rathmun's Roman II, Item 2.
We discussed dropp.i.ng B.
Need to j3 consider range of alternatives in NEPA analysis.
ja 15
~
l Would the Commission object if we brought that up in l
the staff --
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I wouldn't.
I j7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would not object.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I wouldn't object, as long as 19 you didn't try to get across the point that -- well, I would 20 recommend that vou don't try to get across the point that you 21 I
think that it is feasible for them to do it, because then I 22 i
think you are putting yourself in a position of really casting 23!
24 down your credibility.
I wouldn't want to say it because I Aca Federal Recorters, Inc,,
wouldn't want to cast down mine.
l 25 l l
mte 31 l
70 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I don't think the IRG can settle it.
Bu t then, the IRG could flag it as a problem.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNF:
That is different.
I think it 3l.
I would be appropriate for you to raise the point that there is a pr blem.
But to say that they ought to solve it, that is 5
unrealistic.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Right.
I understand.
7 9
- Y 8 *
~~
8';
reat that clanning council thing, too.
Okay?
t 9
I MR. GOSSICK:
On the staff comments, does the i
10 l Commission just want a copy?
Do they want to review it before jj it c es?
I take it that they don' t want to approve it in a 12 formal sense, but --
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
How thick is it?
ja MR. CUNNINGHAM:
It is at least 20 pages, I think.
15 It is pretty lengthy.
16 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Most of it is pretty boring j,
l reading.
18 (Laughter.)
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think I will leave it to the 20 Commissioners to decide.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
I would just like to see a 22 l
23 l Copy.
l MR. CUNNINGHAM:
As long as we are on this subject, 24 AceJedersi Reporters, Inc. ! I would like to bring up another point, Mr. Chairman.
25
mte 32 71 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We are going to be on the subject f r quite a while.
2 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The Executive Council of the IRG is 3,
I starting now, I guess, to go back through the comments, hundreds l l
f them, however rany they received
--I think there were some 5
2,000 commenters -- and to redraf t a report.
Now, we worked as 6
a non-voting member with the IRG drafting group in the process 7
f ev lving this.
We would like to work with this Executive 8
Council in the redraf ting.
9 10 l I think it is important for us to offer what assistance ij we can, and if we don't, we don't have a recourse.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNF:
It is the best way to keep in 13 I
touch.
j4 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
15 t
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:.
I think we should, and please do.
16 I
Peter?
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Can I raise a related question?
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think they're filibustering.
19 (Laughter.)
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
If I read the list of repre-21 s enta tives, Cliff Smith was our representative.
22 MR. CUNNINGHAM :
Yes.
23 !
l CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Assuming that there is another 24 i
Am 8 Metal Rmo,Mn, lm 25 meeting of that same group after Clif f has lef t, I think we l
l ~
l
te 33 72 ought to address who we should have representing us.
And is j
I Bill going to be filling in on an interim basis, and then would 2
it be appropriate to have Bill represent us?
3 MR. GOSSICK:
I would think so.
4 I
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Y:es.
5 OMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have seen -- I declare it to be 7
the sense of the body that that be the case.
g l
l 9j Peter, at long last.
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
I distributed just before the 10 I meeting a list of four other concerns that I have.
On the one 11 hand, I apologize for distributing it so late.
On the other 12 hand, if I had done it earlier, it would have been twice as 13 long.
ja COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :
You mean twice as many items?
15 I
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I whittled it down substan-16 tially.
17 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am not sure which I wish you had ;
18 i
done.
Onward.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If you thought about it very 20 long, it would be cuite clear.
21 I don't know whether you want to just walk through 22 I them.
None are more than about ten lines long.
23 !
i CHAIRMAM HENDRIE:
Lead us through Item 1.
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc,,
l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
My concern in the first one 25 j i
i i
mte 34 73 1
is that the standard that the IRG appears to use is one of 2
no significant threat to health and safety.
There are a lot of 3
possible standards one can use for a waste management effort, 4
from the easiest one, probably being an ALARA type, which says, 5
in effect, that you do the best that you can, on up to very 6
stringent ones.
7 Many have slick words like "significant" or " unreason-8 able" which in effect say somebody else is going to decide later i
9 on what we really meant.
Which is all well and good, except if i i
10 ! this is intended to be a -- the beginnings of a real blueprint 11 toward getting these decisions made, it seems to me that the 12 least the IRG ought to do is to state.in some way what they 13 conceive a threat to be, a significant threat to be, and also 14 to state in some rough way how they see the term ultimately l
i 15 being given a precise definition.
16 For our purposes, it doesn't mean much more than a j
t 17 comment to the effect that the fact that "significant" is l
18 undefined leaves a big area of uncertainty.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But aren't we and EPA charged 20 with essentially establishing this.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
We are charged with establish,
22, ing something, but our legal standard is something else again, t
23 j COMMISSIONER AHEAP.NE:
But what the standard actually i
24 fis going to be for -- in order to have a f acility licensed, Ace-Federal Rooorten, Inc. l 25 lwon't that be established -- aren't EPA and we under the t-l I
mte 3,5 74 reonirement to establish that?
1 COMMISSIONER BPADFORD:
Yes, pursuant to the "no 2
undue risk" standard.
I don't know whether "no undue risk" 3,
l means something different than "no significant threat."
I would gu ss that for all practical purposes it doesn't.
But I wonder 5
whether the IRG -- I wonder if they had a reason for using different language than what we would have taken to be the 7
statutory language.
g MR. SHPPAR:
I think our policy statement is l
9
" reasonable assurance, " "no undue risk."
gj COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Why don't we right now
- j establish that as the definition of --
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or recommend it as a definition, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Just indicate that that is the g
ne we are w rking against and if the IRG intend is different 15 i
in saying "no significant threat" or if they intend "no signifi '
16 i
cant threat" to be the standard, that would recuire legislation.i g
a sn ' t de language.
18 i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Isn't your point -- or is it j9 a
un er m en eg sladon we and N wm j
yu p
n 20 l
establish what will be the acceptable criteria?
MD.. SHAPAR:
If it is licensed.
t COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
One of the things that is i
,3 4
bothering me is a point that is beyond the scope of the effort g
s i
Ae.eer., neoonm inc. I we are making now.
But it is that we will sort of back into a j _
25 1
I i
i
mte 36 75 definition of " undue risk".
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We will back in -- we will 2
agencies will end up establishing, here are the se up --
e w
3 i
4l criteria for the facility to be licensed.
OM ONER BRADFORD:
And somewhere implicit in the 5
criteria will be a statement of what " undue risk" really is.
6 COMMISSIONER EHEARNE:
Or it will be explicit that 7
this is the maximum level of risk, or whatever.
g l
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
IRG is accepting a program 9
that leaves that definition up to us.
10 ;
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As far as I read it, IRG is 11 i
saying, is accepting the current legislation.
And is your 12 question whether the IRG did that with knowledge, or are they 13 0
recommending a new definition?
ja COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The_first thing is whether they 15 intend to use the present legislation as their framework, and l
16 they seem to, in terms of the overall pathway that thev are j7 i
i charting out, then they should use the standard that is in the i
18 1
19 legislation.
COMMISSIONER AHEARME :
In a legal sense.
If they werej 20 l
writing f r the public to understand, they might have tried to l
21 use language that was more understandable.
22 23 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But if that is what they are i
24 doing, it would be worthwhile at least footnoting that.
I Ace ner i secomn, in,
25 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I agree.
i
I mte 37 76 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The statutory language is that.
We take it to mean "no significant threat".
There is a 2
harder point behind that and, as you pointed out on some other 3l things, it is too late in the game to expect the IRG to come 4
to grips with that.
I don't know whether the President would 5
- feel, r whether the Congress would feel that this is u subject 6
on which perhaps they ought to speak further, or simply to leave 7
it to us to decide what a "significant threat" was.
That is g
I not the only way of approaching it.
l 9
i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, that is certainly true 10 '
11 on any issue that regulatory bodies regulate against.
And so, are you suggesting that you don't think it is appropriate for 12 the current statutes to be applied, that you think that 13 Congress should --
ja COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
If I were a Congressman, I 15 1
16 would be interested in taking a long look at whether I could be i
more explicit in terms of --
j7 e
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You certainly can be.
Wouldn'tl 18 i
j9 you be interested in taking a longer lcok as to whether you should be?
l 20 I
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
But whether it would 21 be wise to be more expressed.
But I don't feel that it's up 22 to us to tell the IhG that they ought to do that.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
If I were a Congressman, I 24 ;
Aa 8ewal Rmorten, tm:.
25 would say:
Commissioner, can't you assess whether your agency j
r I
mte 38 77 1
is capable of meeting that responsibility?
I 2'
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
My answer back would then 3
be something along the line of what is significant to me in 4
terms of risk may not be the same as what is significant to 5
you.
And we need to have a clear understanding that you are 6
going to accept my definition.and not later on --
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Which is the way the current a
law is.
I 9
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
And there really are j
10 l two separate issues.
1here is the "significant" versus the 11 "no undue" versus the "no unreasonable" question, which can be 12 handled through --
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would agree that it is 14
Jrthwhile noting that -- the statement of the criteria that e-8 15 we would use.
i 16
?
17 l
i 18 19 20 I
21 22 ;
I 23 i l
24 l Am-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
.i -
l I
78 1495.09.1 J1 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
How do you feel about 2
pointing out also that the report does not currently define 3
what a significant threat would be?
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARi1E s
/Ihen I read the report, I 5
really got the impre ssion that they were using -- and it may 6
be wrong, because I didn't talk to any of the authors of it.
7 I tried to reach some of them who were on leave.
S COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
In China?
9 COMMISSIONER AHE ARNE:
Or elsewhere.
And my 10 Impre ss ion was that they were trying to speak to the public
.11 and say that, "Here is what the genersi ob fective is, to 12 establish it such that there will be no significant threat,"
13 and more commonly understood, but legally imprecise and 14 technlcally imprecise terminology.
15 But it leaves you with the question of whether that 16 says that there will be any significant threat to you, to 17 anybody, or no significant threat to the public as a whole, 18 which are, for many purposes, quite different s tandards to try 19 to set criteria against.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And for how long?
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And for how long?
The 22 question that lies oehind my concern is whether t.his isn't 23 something that is sort of -- underlies everything else in the 24 program, and the President has to decide whether what he is 25 talking about is a management clan in which the objective is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
149h.D9.2 79 jl I
really going to be ar ticulated elsewhere, or whether he wants, 2
also, to articulate the objectives.
3 The IRG report pretty clearly sets down a very 4
general standard, but is going to leave it to somebody else to 5
define "signif.icant."
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE8 My reading of it was that it 7
was leaving it to EPA and NRC to end up with that criteria.
3 COVMI SSIONER BR ADFORD:
If there is general 9
agreement on the lesser point. let me try to put that 10 together, that that is what a comment ought to look like, on
.11 the le vel of risk, and then circulate it around.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Would it be along the line to 13 note that we are working along the ---
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The current statutory 15 language is, as Howard articulated it.
The lan uage of the 16 IRG report is something different.
We think somewhere in the 17 report somebody ought to build a bridge to indicate --
IS COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
19 MR. SHAPAR:
No undue risk to the public health and 20 safety and unreasonable risk in another section.
And, beyond 21 that, the Commission has published a proposed policy statement 22 that has in it the precise criteria that you are going to use 23 for waste burial.
24 I thirk it enbodies the statutory criterie, out it 25 contemolates a two-step licensing for -- I think you want to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
- 495.0h.3 80 jl I
use the broadest finding you can from the statute, and we can 2
provide that very easil'y.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do you want to let Peter draf t 4
that?
It sounds to me like best that we also note, sort of 5
comment, rather than a major -
6 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
Let me draft it first.
In 7
a sense, you are right; it isn't a big piece of rewriting in S
the report.
Yet, it seems to me that the underlying standard 9
is quite an important point.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would have thought -- you
.11 see, I.think that the point that I would expec t in re spo nse --
12 if we can.make it succinctly -- is for them to point out that 13 the criteria, the final criteria for the licensing are going
~
. 14 to be determined by the regulatory bodies.
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Sut that does include the 16 definition o.f words like "significant" and " unreasonable,"
17 which is something very different f rom "c r it e r ia. "
Criteria 18 will flow f rom the. definition. but the cefinition itself wLil 19 talk about what level of risk you are prepared to expose 20 people to and for how long.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I expect -- I do expect, if 22 you are able to articulate that succinctly enough that what 23 you can expect to get back is that it wLil be up to the 24 regulatory agencies to determine that.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That would be useful.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
81 1495.09.4 jl 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
That is why I agr eed 2
that it would be a usef ul comment.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE You will draf t it?
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I will draf t it.
5 The second one is on -- question of the role of the 6
states.
The report says that we don't want the states to have 7
a veto.
'de don't want them to have consultation and 8
concurrence 9
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't understand why you say 10 that it 1.s not that clear, Peter.
Me will consult with them
.11 unt.il they concur.
12 (Laughter.)
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is fairly straightforward.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Maybe, in fact, what 15 probably is there is that there is something about the word 16
" veto" that the IRG is anxious to get away from.
If they had 17 go tter. away f rom it without mentioning it, I guess I would be 18 more comfortable.
19 I guess what they have said is that we not propose 20 and that the state ve to, but we are proposing that state 21 concurrence be required.
And, in my dense way, I don't see 22 the diff erence between a withheld concurrence and a veto.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They may have figured out 24 some difference that we can't discern.
It might be worthwhile 25 asking.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
1495.09.5 82 jl 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The impre ss io n I got is that 2
they managed at the National Governors' Asso'ciation, that the 3
National Conference of State Legislatures have proposed a 4
federal-state process of, cuote, " Cooperative Federalism, or 5
Consultation and Concurrence," quote.
6 It sounds like they have managed to get the 7
statements from NGA, or the state legis.latures to come in and 8
say, "He re is what we ought to do."
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But they also go on to say 10 that this is not a veto, and it is that sentence that is il troubling me, because I can't see the difference between a 12 withheld concurrence and a veto.
If they had stopped with the 13 part you just read, I would have no problem.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Since we would just be 15 asking them to clarify a point --
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
An_d the sign if icance to us 17 is?
IS COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
In one sense, narg inal --
19 that is, at some point it will involve state participation in 20 our licensing regimen.
I wouldn't pre ss the comment.for that 21 reason alone.
It seems to me that it is a part of the report 22 that is ambiguous.
23 COV'4ISSIONER AHEAR:iE:
I think it is --
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
An important cart that is 23 ambiguous.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-2700
83 1495.09.6 J1 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I gue.ss I am not sure why it 2
is of great importance to us.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Peter, if I could find a staff 4
member to adopt i t --
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am trying to use the same 6
criteria I have been using all along.
7 CO MMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is like asse ssing risk, 8
John.
On the one hand, you get a number that is important to 9
us, and then you multiply that by a number that represents the 10 importance of the point you are trying to make in the reporti 11 and you sort of Judge the product as to whether it is worth 12 making.
I would agree with you that this one is relatively 13 unimportant to us, but that it is, on a scale of the overall 14 waste' management program, an important po int to have clear.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Eventually, I doubt
- you 16 know, I think what we would be doing by fighting is, in a way, 17 saying, "Here is an area that is not of great importance to 13 us; and we doubt whether you really have worked it out yet, 19 but we are calling that to your a ttent ion. "
20 COVMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is an area that is not 21 of great importance to us.
It is of great importance to the 22 waste program.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Which I think is certainly 24 very we ll recognized bu t not yet worked out, a nd so I do n' t 25 think that there is anyone who nas been in vo l ved in the waste ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
9 84 495.C9.7 J1 1
program on the Congress, and the states, or the Executive, or 2
us, who doesn't understand that the issue of'how the states 3
play is very critical.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I hadn't thought of this 5
before.
There is another point on which the Commission has 6
already taken a position.
It is another one of those points I think, in that same testimony.
7 3
MR. TRUBATCH:
The Commission expressed an po s it io n 9
on the timing of the veto, but that was in relation to a state 10 procosal.
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The other question is 12 whethe r it involves participating s and we spoke to this in out 13 testimony, that they should participate all the way through 14 the NRC licensing proce ss, and whether it is noncurrence or 15 veto, should not occur until the end of that proc e ss.
15 I think our concern then was simply avoiding sort 17 of arbitrary shooting from the hip of the knowledge that the 13 repository might be in a particular state.
19 MR. SHAPAR:
A former-Chairman has taken a 20 position.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
For or against?
22 VR. SHAPAR:
Against.
23 CO MMI SSI ONER 3R ADFORD :
It clearly isn't binding 24 then.
25 C 0 "MI SSI ONER AHEARJE:
My coint is I think everyone ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
85 1495.09.3 I
jl I
recognizes that the role to the states is very important.
2 think everyone recognizes that the issue of how the states
~
3 e xe rc is e that role is of great importance.
And I think most people recognize that consultation and cuncurrence is a 4
5 nebulous phrase, because they really haven't really worked all 6
that out.
7 So, if we want to go on record saying we also 8
recognize that --
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Up to there, I am 10 comcletely with you.
It is when you get to that sentence in here whlch follows that formulation, where they say whatever 12 consultation and concurrence means.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is not a veto.
14 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
That is a paraphra se and 15 not an exact quotation.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Th_e IRG does not believe 17 that a policy preference of ei e xec. s ive federal supremacy 13 or state ve to is acpropriate at t *. i s time 19 COMMI SSIONER BRADFORD>
Rl7ht.
And they expre ss a 20 pre ference for what s ee m to b e --
21 COMMISSIGNER AHEARNE:
The IRG Joes believe in 22 recommending that the consultation and concurrence approach be 23 adopted, which means they are st ill trying to work it out.
21 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
R1ght.
And my only 25 difficulty is that it seems to me that concurrence root. in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, (202)347-3700
495.09.9 86 11 I
any way that I can conceive of it, is still a veto.
So that 2
while they are saying it is not sporopriate to come out for a 3
veto, it seems to ne that they have.
4 COMMISSIONER KEREDY:
Could it conceivably not ce 5
a veto?
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If you accept Joe's 7
formulation that we will consult with him until they concur.
3 COMMI SSIONER KE NNEDY:
That is one ways but there 9
is another way, and that is that a failure to concure would 10 not stop the Federal Government from going ahead. which would.
.11 in a sense, be something le ss than total federal preemption, 12 not much le ss, however, but different from a veto, which would 13 say, if you gave them the ve to --
la COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It would be dif ferent than 15 a veto.
I think it would also be different f rom conc urrence.
I6 COMMI SSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes - we 11 -
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is trying to be worked 13 out.
It is an important, s e n s it ive, difficult thing.
19 CO MMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
What you are saying really 20 is that you prefer to let them have the ambiguity to work 21 w ith.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am saying, if we want to 23 coint and say, "We know that this is very significant, and we 22 also note that you haven't culte worked it out yet," I am not 25 really sure why we should be doing that.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
87 1495.09.10 J1 1
COVMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Then I wouldn't be in f avor 2
of it either, but I would be more -- saying 'that what you are 3
presenting to the President, does not, in its present fo rm.
4 seem to make complete sense, that on the one hand you saying 5
no veto, and on the other hand, I can't read concurrence any 6
other way.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I suspect that that is well 3
understood.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The le tter le tter doesn't IJ rise or f all on this.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am against includ ing it.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me see if I can get any 13 results from a pol 1.
14 Those for including it -- and, Peter. I count you 15 a s --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would make the point.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Those against.
13 COMVISSIONER AHEARNE:
(Raises hand.)
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am going to vote against.
2D COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I am abstaining.
21 (Laughter.)
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I really don't give a damn.
23 nor do I think the report or the letter will f all one way or 24 the other.
25 CHAIRVAN HENDRIE:
/Ie will have to add a caregraon ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
88 495.09.I1 J1 I
at the bottom that says, " Commission divided on the question 2
of whether to make a comment on the consultation."
3 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Let's go on to the next 4
one.
5 CHAIRMAff HENDRIE:
Itw 3.
6_
Go ahead.
7 3
9 10
.11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
CR 1495' WHITLOCK 89 t-10 mtel 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It helps if you have that one 2
in front of you.
But the. report specifically states that the 3
President wanted to support -- and I think that is a cuote --
4 support private sector efforts to generate a greater degree of 5
social and technical understanding and agreement on nuclear 6
waste management issues.
7 This will be another thing where the importance to a
the NRC is very low, but it doesn't seem to me of fhand to be 9
anything -- Just in reading it, that I would be at all comforta,
l 10 I ble as being part of a recommendation to the President about.
11 The private sector efforts to generate social and technical 12 understanding seem to me to encompass a range of things ranging 13 from television advertising, speakers bureaus to lobbying, what 14 have you, that the President keeps an arm's-length relationshio 15 with.
16 It is of no great importance to the NRC, but I would l
l 17 flag it as something that they ought to drop from the recort.
j l
18 COMMISSIONER KEMNEDY :
I am just noting and recognl:1ng 19 your comment, Peter, that it is a matter of sort of low order 20 interest to the NRC.
But I an noticing the introductory sen-21 tence.
The purpose is to generate a scirit of openness on the 22 part of the government and full participation on the part of 1
23 l the public, that the President would encourage all of these 24 things.
And that sort of sounds like the President is being Aw e..i a.comn. inc. j l
25 l urged to endorse the general princiales which we have lonc l_
I
mte 2 90 since accepted as governing our own behavior here.
j Peter?
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The most recent private sector 3
effort in this area that caused any great oublic stir was 4
Westinghouse's commissioning of a poll to advise it how to best 5
change the minds of the people of New Mexico about a waste 6
depository.
And the Under Secretary of Energy has apoarently 7
8l called the Westinghouse oeople up and told them that he wished i
l 9l they would cut it out, and that this was a bad idea.
l 10 '
I take it, under this recommendation --
l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Was it a bad idea or what?
1j COMMISSIO!?ER BRADFORD:
Under this recommendation, he 12,
should not have made that call.
This should be encouraged.
13 It seems to me that this is something on which the President l
ja 15 ought to be neutral.
The first.two points are well within the ambit of l
16 i
the Federal Government, but he shouldn't be in the position of l
j7 l
supporting an electrical utility's television ads.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEAPNE:
I agree with you.
I think 19 that is a dumb reconr.endation in the report.
I think that i
20 l
whoever put it in --
l 21 COMMISSIONER DRADFORD:
I knew that we.s coming.
22 (Laughter.)
23 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And as a private citi::en, as a l
we n conm inc. l Ace 25 federh1 worker, I think that is really a dumb thing.
It i
i i
i
mte 3 91 shouldn't be there.
j I have dif ficulty seeing that the NRC's ef fort, that 2
here is a high item of concern other than if we want to make a i
3 l
comment that, in addition, we think here is something -- we have j 4
had recent experience that it really is a dumb thing to be in 5
l there, I agree.
6 COMMISSIO'NER BRADFORD:
If you would agree to let me 7
send John Deutch this page of the transcrict, that would take t
8, 9l care of it.
I 10 i COMMISSIONER AHTARNE:
Of course.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Send him the entire thing.
It jj might do all kinds of things.
You can't tell.
12 CHAIRbGR HENDRIE:
I think that might be, in fact, be }
13 l
i a cood way to handle it.
I would orefer not to put it in a ja letter, because in part I am not sure, independent -- well --
i 15 I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Joe, it was a dumb statement to' 16 l
have in there.
37 CFJIRFAN HENDPIE:
But do Commissions of our kind --
18 should we --
39 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We as --
20 1 1
CHAIRMAN HFNDRIE:
Whether we ought to be advising 21 l
i him to do this or do that --
22 l
COMMISSIONER AHEARME:
It was stupid of ther to have 23 l it in there.
24 Aa wm Rooorms,1N.,
l 25 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That was a different question.
i i
t 1
mte,4 92 CHAIRlGN HENDRIE:
What is the last one here now?
)
Transportation, public input.
2 COMMISSIONER PRADFOPD :
This one I would be perfectly 3
i happy to ao in the staf f comra.ent.
But there is a list of people 4
who should be consulted on transportation matters on the top of 5
page 19 that includes the nuclear transportation industry and 6
makes no mention of the public intervenor.
7 A
e sure t. hat was an w ers @ W 8!
l the draf ters, and they would be glad to have the suggestion.
9 I Why don' t we s tick it in the staf f comr.ents?
i 10 Okay, 1 is in.
3 will go in formal.
4 will go in jj the staff comments.
We have a split vote on'2.
Can I 12 convince --
j3 l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You want me to vote no?
l ja COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, vote yes.
15 (Laughter.)
l 16 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIF:
Vote one way or the other.
37 I
COMMISSIONER KFNNEDY:
Since I don't cive a damn, 18 j9 why do vou want me to vote?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So we can co home.
20 I
i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me write it, Dick, and I 21 i
I will circulate it around.
22 COM"ISSIONER KEN!'EDY:
That is a superb sugcestion 23 l!that will cive all kinds of people time to lobby --
24 w wesneoorrors,Ine.;
25 ;
(Laughter.)
i i
l
mte 5 93 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
-- if they can find me while 2
I am interviewing candidates for various open positions.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Sorry to have kept you all so long, 4
but I think we may have a fighting chance of making December 4th.
l 5
We wouldn't have without this session, I am sorry to say.
i
!-10 6
(Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m.,
the meeting was adiourned.)
7 8
9 10 !
11 12 13 14 i
15 l
16 l
17 l
18 19 20 21 l
22 23 24 Am 8Meral Reporters, la:.
j 25 l 1_
i l