ML19305A262
| ML19305A262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/14/1979 |
| From: | Ahearne J, Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7903080600 | |
| Download: ML19305A262 (96) | |
Text
O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
's IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION OF DECISION IN S-3 RULEMAKING
. ~,
,,y :; 2._,j,.
(
a Place.
' Washington, D. C.
Date -
Wednesday, 14 February 1979 Pages l'- 96
~
a.
u. phen.:
j' (202)347 3700 Q
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReponers 444 North Capitol Street j
Weshington, D.C. 20001 7003 080 6 Od.
NATIONWIDE COVE 2 AGE. DAILY
~
=
~
3 CR2759
(
, n. _
1
.\\
/
DISCLAIMER -
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the Unfiied States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on wedmsday. 14 Fehmrv 1979 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, it. 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'tfonal purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not. part of the formal 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 Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
f e
e e
f
. f e
S I
2 CR2759 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
I
^
PUBLIC MEETING 4
DISCUSSION OF DECISION IN S-3 RULEMAKING 5
6 Room 1130 7
1717 H S treet, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
i 8
Wednesday, 14 February 1979 9
10 !
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 1:45 p.m.
Il BEFORE:
12 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman
(,.
13 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner I
14 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner I
15 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner i
i 16 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner l
17 PRESENT :'
l l
18 Me.ssrs. Cunningham, Eilperin, Gotchy, Hoyle, Lowenburg, Miraglia, Murray, Sege, and Slaggie 19 i
I 20 l
21 l
l 22 '
f 23 24 l
-FewW Reorms, lm.
25
CR 2759 3
MEL'TZERi jwb 2/14/79 1
PRQqEEglEqS
- 1 2
(1:45 p.m.)
i.
3' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The Commission meets this after-l f
I noon to continue its discussion of the decision in the S-3 4l e
5 Rule Making" matter.
We met, I guess it was on the first'of I
6-February, went through_a number of the points here.
The place 7
we-have to bring ourselves eventually to is to decide on one 8
or another of the options cited in the Council's January 25th l
t 9
paper.
10 These are:
To establish as a final rule the modi-11 fied S-3 Tables recommended by the Hearing Board; and direct 12 the staff to provide explanatery material when the table is (l
13 used in an individual licensing case.
14 A second option, Option B, would be to do that, but I I
15 !
also to direct preparation of a suitable explanatory narrative 16ll on an expedited basis, the narrative to address the signifi-n 17 l cance of the impacts of the entries in the table.
And.the I
18 intent would be then to go out, presumably on a notice and 19 !
comment basis, and make the narrative part of the rule.
l 20 i There are other options.
One of them would simply 1
21 be to do nothing, and to leave all of these matters to be 22 litigated in individual proceedings.
And I expect there may i
\\
~J
\\
be some other combinations.
23 l
24 ;I Scanning, once again, across the material that has
-emmtawonm,w.l 25 been accumulated here, it seems to me, in view of the fact 1
I i
1-2 jwb 4
that there is a more sweeping update on the fuel cycle environ-j mental effects coming down the line, it continues to seem to 2
s e
3 me that what we ought to do is to adopt Option A as a general i
direction of the decision, and ask counsel to begin a draft l
4 order that reflects that direction.
5 It seems to me that trying to move forward with 6l 7
additional stages of the rule making to incorporate a suitable,
i explanatory narrative into the rule, that one comes then in 8
9 effect to the sweeping. update,.which is at hand, and is 10 scheduled to move ahead, and for which the staff has said 11 they expect to have a proposal in hand about the end of this 12 year.
l
(
13 It is my own guess that trying to hang in the rule i
14 a narrative on the present S-3 Table simply moves one back 15 and puts this proceeding on that time track.
16 Let me ask if the counsel -- counsel's office i
17 [ would like to provide other remarks, or point out where mine 18 need clarification, or are wrong, or whatever.
19 MR. EILPERIN:
I think you set out the major 20 Options.
I think one might usefully find out from the staff today where they are in terms of the S-3 update, what subjects !
21 22 are intended to be covered in an explanatory narrative, which l
l' 23 I gather at this point would be part of the S-3 -- at least 24 l the proposed S-3 update, unless there is Commission direction a Federal Reconers, Inc. l 25 l otherwise.
And, to perhaps find out, as well, how certain I
1-3 jwb 5
subjects are covered in individual licensing proceedings today,l l
such as integration times, and cumulative impacts of any sub d.
2 i
i j
jects of that sort.
l,l And I think, with information along those lines, 1
i p rhaps the Commission could be in a good position to choose 5!
which among the options it cares to follow.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
We have had some 7
~
8 one part or another -- Dick, do you feel able to start some 9
outlining of there things, and then ask others to join?
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Okay.
Well, why don't I start.
- )
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't you come on up.
We have got a couple of vacant chairs at the table.
Who else g
s should come up and join in?
g n
H mer should, and somebody 15 fr m NRR, to talk about how they handle this in the current 16 i
reactor cases.
I think that should probably be enough, at the 17 l 18 Mr. Chairman, we carefully p: epared a little j9 I
summary table on these two items and showed it to the attorneys this morning, and they advised me that the ex parte I
g rule might work here, so I can't give it to you.
g COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Could somebody explain to me why?
24,
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I certainly can't.
1-4 jwb 6
1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Could some attorney tell me?
2 MR. EILPERIN:
I think Dick is not referring to i
3-having shown it to us.
t 4
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
No, no, I'm sorry.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No, I'm talking about why --
6 oh, showed it to somebody else?
I see.
7 MR. EILPERIN:
No, I gather this is advice from 8
ELD., My advice would be to the contrary.
9 (Laughter. )
10 MR. MURRAY:
We thought the table was inaccurate.
11 (Laughter.)
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's a different question.
(]
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
hen can I give him the inaccurate 14 table?
l 15 MR. MURRAY:
Feel free.
Make it inaccurate or 16 accurate, whatever you wish.
I 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Jim, you'd better get a little 18 closer. 'Why don't you come down to a microphone and get a 19 1 copy of the table in hand?
20 t COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And then you can also tell i
21 us what's inaccurate.
22l MR. CUNNINGHAM:
There were two things that were 23 ll noted here that were not quite accurate.
On the top line, 24 !
number one under " Option A,"
the second column, where it says co-Faceral Reporters, Inc, l 25 l "no further work," it should be "no further staff work,"
l il
1-5 jwb 7
I because certainly the Commission -- the Commission and its i,
2 staff has more work to do.
i 3i And then going across to " disadvantages," the word i
I 4
" rule making" ir. the last line should be " licensing. "
i 5;
That, so far as I know, have been the only things I
6' that have been pointed out to me as being inaccurate.
i i
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay --
8 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Oh, one more.
" Radon" is added 9
to the rule there.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Where is that?
11 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Under " disadvantages," Commissioner' 12 Kennedy.
13 MR. IIIRAGLIA:
Radon is presently excluded.
(N 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How would you change the 15 wording?
16 MR. IIIRAGLIA:
Just scratch the " radon," " radon 222,"
i 17.
delete.it.
It is presently removed from the rule, so it 18 l wouldn't be a disadvantage.
19 [
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I see, neutral.
20 Jim, do you know of other sort of specific red-21 line changes on the thing?
There may be points of view that 22 I'll ask you Mbout as we go along.
MR. MURRAY:
Mr. Chairman, this table could be read 23 l
i 24 [j as advocating a position, one way or the other, and it seems Jederal Reporters, Inc..'
25 [ to me that the staff has already put forward its position on N
l i,
..6 jwb 8
1 l
I what options to adopt.
And I feel uncomfortable, now that the proceeding is submitted, so to speak, in making further i
2 3
arguments one way or the other.
I 4
We did have a few -- we just got this table about l
5 11:00 o' clock this morning, so we really haven't had time to 6,
look at it, but it does -- to really examine -- but it does, l
7 it could be read as favoring one option or the other.
And i
3 we don't feel that we should be making arguments to that j
9 effect at this stage of the proceeding.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I see.
Il COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Are you suggesting, then, 12 Jim, that the table is not a simply balanced presentation of i
('
13 pros and cons, but in fact it 'could be seen as an advocacy 14 paper?
15 MR. MURRAY:
I am suggesting that we in the legal 16 office haven't had an opportunity to examine it from that i
17 ;
point of view with great care, and I am sure that the hearts 18 of those that develop them are pure, and they weren't attempting 19 '
to --
20 1 (Laughter. )
i 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
He questions the hearts of 22 those that might be reading it.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I can understand that.
I 23 l
24 lI l
think he should.
-Fenal Rmornrs, lm. f 25 l (Laughter.)
end #1 i
i l
l
1,7 jwb OPEN MIKE
- 2 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's a point.
2 MR. EILPERIN :
Well, the Commission has handed, l 8l has been handed a paper Certainly, I think since the 3^
i 4:
Commission has already seen it, and it's going to be part of I
i 5'l the -- of some publicly available paper, it would be -- perhaps-6l it would be wise to also send the paper to those who partici-i 7
Pated in the rule making.
8 As I said, in matters --
9, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Excuse me.
But having sent 10 it to those who may have participated in the rule making, what 11 effect does that have?
Are we then to wait for them to 12 comment on it?
13 MR. EILPERIN:
Well, in --
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or are we just doing that as 15 l; an academic exercise to make sure that the record is complete?
I 16,
MR. EILPERIN:
Okay, in -- if you want, I.I 17 ;, you can -- Well, that's certainly the safest and the clearest 18 kind of information to get from the staff at this point, at l
19 l least information dealing with the status of proceedings --
20 i where they are on their work, how many man-hours it would take i
21 to do one task rather than the other; rather than an advocacy 22 document.
23 In a proceeding such as the S-3 proceeding, which I
24 1, is not a formal adjudication, it's my understanding of the law s.eers neoonm inc. '
25 ;
that the Commission is entitled to consult its staff, so long
2-8 jwb 10 l
I as it does not decide matters before it based upon critical 2
information that other parties to the proceeding have not 3 -
seen.
t 4
I would think that matters such as the status of Si the staff's S-3 update are not the-kind of critical determina-l 6 i tions, the critical information that would be called into I
i 7
question by that kind of proposition.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
9 Let us please focus -- Dick can use this paper as 10 a guide to his discussion -- but let us please focus on these 11 questions of the status of the work on the update; and secondly, 12 on the way in which the staff now, in individual licensing (l
13 proceedings, deals with the dose commitment, health, et cetera,
~
\\/
14 questions that would in principle be spoken to in a narrative..
15 And let us not pursue this paper in the sense of 16 discussing its detailed provisions, and so on.
Okay?
n lI 17 i Why don't you go ahead and -- it looks like a l
I 18 useful checklist to help remind you of where the status of 19 l these things are.
I l
20 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could I ask a question on 21 that?
When you say,'" Don't discuss the details," does that 22l mean that, as he talks about the update schedule, that the 23 l conclusion is that we can' t or shouldn't ash detailed questions'
'l 24 h about the procedures being followed on the update?
-Faceral Reoorters, Inc.
25 j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
By no means.
All I am saying is h
!i Il i
2-9 jwb 11 e
i I don' t propose -- what I suggest is that we don' t push all 2
the other papers back and put this paper solely in frcnt of I
i each of us, and then let the whole discussion revolve about it,:
3 1
I 4
because it does have --
i 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes; okay.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- the, at least the possibility,,
7 as was pointed out.
8 As far as I can see, from a quick scan down it, i
I 9
why it just attempts to lay out:
Iiere's this option; here's 10 that option; and so on.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would hope, as a matter 12 of sort of simple practice that in the future when there is a
^
13 question such as an ex parte question arising out of the
(]
14 existence of some paper or other, that someone will discuss 15ll it with the General Counsel before we come to this table to 16 debate it.
i 17 i I don't think this is the place to discuss that.
I 18 I think those questions ought to be resolved and not come up 19 l here unless they're matters of policy which we can make a 20 i decision as to, one way or the other.
I 21 But it seems to me if it's a matter of law, it 22 ought to have been decided before it came to the table.
It's 23 just a suggestion for the future.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It sounds good to me.
-Fecefaf Reporters. Inc. ;
25 l COMMISSIONER KFNNEDY:
And that would suggest that i
I i
12 2,10 jwb 1
if we could possibly do it, counsel and the ELD maybe could 2
exchange telephone numbers.
3' (Laughter.)
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If you don't have copies, 5
I'll send you copies of the phone book, both of them.
6 i MR. EILPERIN ;
I don't think that would be l
7 violative of the separation function.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I hope not.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Dick, where are we on the update?
10 Why don't you summarize.
11 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, we're right in -- we have a 12 contract out.
The contractor is doing the bulk of the work.
13 We're right in the middle of the thing, now.
It's been going
{j.
14 on awhile.
There are some --
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
How long has it been going 16 on?
i MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Ah -- May --
17 l 18 MR. MIRAGLIA:
About May of
'78.
19 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:. May of '78.
I 20 i MR. CUNNINGHAM:
And radon, for example, the data l
l on radon is just becoming available.
'ihere's some new 21 f
22 !
technology that is being incorporated.
So we're in the I
middle of things right now.
23 l
24 ll I think if you go down this list here, these are i
-Feceral Reporters, Inc.,
25,
the types of things that will be included in the report.
l ll r
il
2-11 jwb 13 I
1 The first thing deals with new measurements, new j
2h data -- very little data on which we can place our measure-q 4
3 ments.
Some new technology.
For example, centrifuge enrich-4 ment; more realistic models in the old S-3.
We took models 5'
that enveloped the problem, rather than trying to get one where 6
there were uncertainties.
We put outer boundary limits on it, 7
and this one will try to niake it more realistic.
8 Socioeconomic factors, we haven't really begun yet, 9
except to a very limited extent.
This is something that came 10,
up more recently in the rule-making in the back end of the l-11 i fuel cycle.
12 Technetium impacts, we haven't addressed yet, but i
I 13 they will be addressed in the new rule-making procedure, to the extent we understand them.
There are two documents out i
14 ;I 15 l on technetium.
One is the EPA model that you're probably 16 l;,f amiliar with.
There is, in the January Health Physics Journal,
'i 17 an article that says the concentration factors of technetium 18 in plants might be a factor of two or three orders of magnitude, l
19 ;;
rather than has been heretofore anticipated.
l 20 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Inside of which plants?
I 21 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I beg your pardon?
i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Inside of which plants?
22l 23l-MR. MIRAGLIA:
Vegetation.
I 24 h 1R. CUNNINGHAM:
Vegetation.
I don't remember Feceral Reporters, Inc.
what --
25 h li
- I i
2-12 jwb 14 1
MR. MIRAGLIA:
- Grain, 2
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
-- what specific plants.
t 3~
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
G r a i n~.
11R. CUNNINGHAM:
The problem with that -- what the 4
5 article, the outcome of the article would indicate, is that 6
more research has to be done.
l 7
What they did was first they put very high concen-8l trations in -- nothing you would expect to see in the real I'
9 world -- to the point that there was some effects on plants.
10 The second thing was that they took their samples 11 when the plants were very young, at a rapid growing stage when 12 the water content was high.
i 13 And the third thing was that they used technetium k-
i 14 tectate, which you would -- as I understand it,'one would l
15 i assume would get the greatest uptake, and not necessarily 16 reflect the chemical form of technetium.
17, But what it does indicate is that more research is 18 needed on this.
Now that, coupled with what EPA is suying 19 l about technetium, complicates the picture.
l 20 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When we last talked on i
21 February 1st, I don't think you had had a chance to look in i
22j detail at the EPA report.
I gather that you've done that 23ll I
since?
i 1
24 i MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, people have been looking at
-Feceral Reporters. Inc.
25 l it.
Have you something specifically --
la O
l
2.13 jw.b 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I was -- I gather that,
1 i
2 you have concluded that it is something that you will incor-3 porate in a serious fashion into --
4l MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Oh, I think so.
I think we have i
5 to address the techniques in question.
How we would treat it 6
in the-final analysis isn't at all clear, yet.
But we certainly have to treat it.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is it too early, then, to 8
9 say whether or not the previous estimate of having the iodine 10 129 being
. bounding is going to have to be changed?
11 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I'll let Homer talk in just a 12 minute on this point.
I think probably the iodine 129 as 13 bounding is probably more conservative than the impacts would
(}
14 be from the technetium, but how much -- Homer, do you want to?,
l IS -
MR. LOWENBURG:
Yes.
The staff assumed, in doing 16 ;
the S-3 back-end update that technetium -- oh, excuse me, not ll i
17 i technetium -- iodine 129 would be released prior to terminal I
18 disposal at the waste repository, and this is a very conser-19 !
vative approach to environmental effects.
I
\\
20 i The staff felt that this would compensate for any l
21 other likely releases that would occur from the back end of 22 I the fuel cycle upon any of the isotopes that weren't specifi-h 23 cally addressed in the S-3 table.
I I
24 The staff model assumed no releases from the
-Federal Reporters, Irc l 25,
repository during the life of the repository, and then looked i
i i
2-14 jwb 16 I
1 at the unusual events like major natural phenomenon occurrences, I
t i
2 and so forth, to see what those effects would be on the 3
repository; and they found they would be relatively small.
i The EPA did approach the matter of releases from 4
5 a repository in a different manner.
They looked at very small 6,
releases over very long periods of time.
And with that type I
7 of modeling, their analysis for what is an acceptable reposi-8 tory indicated that over long periods of time technetium might 9'
be expected to be evolved from the repository.
l 10 However, their analysis was that the releases would 11 be acceptable, assuming the small releases over long periods 12 -
of time, and the techaetium component of. the impacts would be 13 about 90 percent of the total component -- meaning, in effect,
(
i that even though the releases were satisfactory, 90 percent of 14 I
l 15 i these satisfactory releases are technetium.
16 l Now there is a great variety of models one can i
17 j apply to a complex system like a repository, and the NRC staff L
18 has actually studied -- that is, the Waste Management Staff 19 1 has studied over a thousand different model cases, and in that l
20 j analysis only 60 of them indicated that technetium was actually 1
21 the limiting or controlling isotope.
22 So we agree, and we also disagree, with EPA in their analysis.
That is, technetium is not the only isotope
~
23 l
24 of concern, or the major one in all cases, but it is an
-Federal Reporters, Inc. '
25,
isotope of concern in a number of cases.
I k
P Il
2,15 jwb 17 I
il ~
l However, our analysis of their paper indicates j
I l
i 2l that the S-3 conservative approach of releasing all the iodine '
I 3,
prior to terminal disposal does adequately account for, as i
we see it, the technetium release that could occur no matter 4
~
5:
which model you used for assessing --
6 MR. EILPERIN :
I would like to mention, as I l
think I mentioned the last time we had this kind of discussion, 7
that the Commission can't use this kind of information dealing l 8
I 9j with specific --
l 10 -
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
To change a number.
11 R. EILPERIN :
-- for us to change a number.
- 7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE
But we could use the decision, 13 information to decide whether or not to go ahead.
(
14 MR. EILPERIN :
That's correct, recognizing that i
15 this is not to be done in an individual licensing proceeding i
16 l in any event.
's 17 it COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We can use the discussion, 18 if we wish to do so, to guide the development of an explana-l 19 tory statement which would accompany the rule.
i 1
20 j MR. EILPERIN:
Yes.
You could use the 1
21 discussion to say that you would like a particular subject 22 I covered for scoping it out in that sort of fashion, but I 1
don't think you can use the discussion for the purposes of 23 24 just citing that, in fact, based upon this knowledge, that
-Faceral Reporters, Inc.
25 jj iodine 129 would properly bound consideration of technetium.
'l I
l I
il.
2--16 jwb 18 i
MR. LOWENBURG:
Even though that was said j
riginally on the records --
i 2[
I 3:
MR. EILPERIN:
Well, I don't think that you should -- I don't think that-supplementary information 4
dealing with that kind of subject is something that --
5i MR. LOWENBURG:
Well, the point being that 6
l that question was asked of the participants in the proceeding, 7
and the question that was posed just now is:
Does this new 8
information that's come available since that point in time, 9
10 has it changed that conclusion?
Okay.
l 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And I gather the answer is "no"?
12 O
'"""'" "^":
i"5 * "" ***
1"'
"*'re S *"S i3 ja to do more on decontamination, decommissioning.
There are i
15 some impacts there.
I 16 We're going to include occupational exposures, plus 3
j7 trying to do population dose commitments and health effects.
18 Probably those health effects will be tied in with the BR-3 l
j9 ;; report, if it comes out, as it's supposed to come out weekly --
I 20 maybe it's down to daily, now -- but that will have a bearing i
21 on what.we say about health effects.
Nonradiological affluents, we're going to try to 22 l
~
say something about the effects from that, but I'm not quite 23
'i 24 y sure how far we can go on that.
-Feceral Reoorters, Inc. i 25 Cumulative impacts, we can try to put error bands a
e
!l li 1,
2.-17 jwb 19 l'
on our estimates.
The estimates will be -- try to be more l
real.istic.
2 That's what we have underway, and we would hope to o
get to the Commission in about October.
4' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When does the contract end?
5!
That is, when is the contract date for them to submit their material to you?
7 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I don't know.
Homer, do you know what the date is?
9 MR. LOWENBURG:
It started in May.
I think it's on there for about 18 months, plus hearing ti.me.
We had that 3) gl option, I think, in the contract.
MM OER N M:
18 monds?
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
To a final statement, the g
P draft statement.
That's to t.he final statement.
15 ';
I 16 !
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, but what -- When -- your U
question, I thought was:
When does the work -- when is the g,
18 l w rk required to be submitted to the staff by the contractor?
COMMISSIGNER AHEARNE:
Right.
39 MR. LOWENBURG:
Early fall, August or September.
,0 ;
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do I gather that the issue i
g of -- or the question of whether, or to what extent, health g
effects are going to be included is going to be dependent upon what the BEIR' 3 report comes out.
24 Feceral Reporters, Inc.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think we -- no, I think we 25,
i Il
,2-18,jwb 20 l
I can include health effects based on data we have, and as a j
2 matter of fact Reg Gotchy has included health effects in some j
of the work on the radon.
3, 4l The problem is that if BEIR 3 comes out --
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Sure.
5 I
6h MR. CUNNINGHAM:
-- and they change our i
estimates, it's going to be three or four months before BEIR 7
is analyzed, and I think EPA has a hearing scheduled on it, 8
so we would be in a fix if we come out with one set of health 9
effects when BEIR 3. is..out and that might say something a 10 11 little bit different.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My only concern is that I 12 i
(
13 was wondering whether I was hearing from you that because of 14 a slippage of BR-3, health effects may not be included.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
No, no, no.
We would come 15 l
16 '!
out with health effects.
The problem with TBEIR 3 is that it j
comes out later in the game, we're still almost bo[nb to use 17 BR-3.
i, 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Where do we come to grips l
20 i with the question of how long a time do we look over?
I MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, on the dose commit-21 ments --
22l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or, how small a dose ought to 23 24 ;! be.
-Feceral Reporters, Inc.
~
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That is number eight you are 25,
ll
2-19 jwb 21 1
citing?
l i
l 2:
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Ven, ves.
3i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And is that a specific
,~
task for the contractor?
Is that being addressed in this l
4 5
study?
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
On how far to go?
How far 6
out in time?
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Some conceptual basis for 8
9 dealing with the problem.
10 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
John?
11 MR. LEROHL:
I'll be glad to comment on that.
12 It's not a specific task, as such.
We take it as 13 we go in consideration of radionuclides, basically, and the
{
14 emphasis to date has been on the front end, of which radon i
15 f and thorium-10, the grandparent, is the beg ~t.hing.
16 That is now coming to fruition.
We are attempting l
17 to propose a rule addressing the radon question here in a 18 matter of weeks.
So we have deferred consideration of the 19 i back end -- the other long-lived one being carbon 14,.as 20 '
you know -- pending the outcome of these proceedings.
We didn't i
21 want to duplicate the efforts.
22 So to date, we've emphasized just the front end of 23ll the problem.
24 COMMISSIONER'GILINSKY:
I guess I don't fully a-Feceral Reporters, Inc. l 25,
understand your answer.
Is there anywhere in the staff an ll h
l!
2.20 jwb 22 l
I effort that is addressed to providing some conceptual frame-I 2
work for addressing, you know, the problem we run into in i
d 3,
considering all of the long-lived isotopes, which is -- you i!
4, know, either how far do you look?
Or how do you incorporate l
5 this into analysis?
Or what sort of a calculational model 6,
do you use?
7 Is there anything of this sort going on?
8 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes, sir.
I think the best 9j paper on that was by Dr. Gotchy.
i 10 Perhaps you would care to comment on it?
11 MR. GOTCHY:
All I did was to' kind of review the 12 l staff's position that we had during the hearings last year.
(/
13 We have taken the position that we will integrate over a time
^
14 !
period where we feel we have a model that will reasonably 15,'
describe the behavior of the radionuclides concerned.
I 16 [
I think last year during the hearings, we included--
'i 17 !, even though we had not been asked to -- we incit.ded in the N
18 reevaluation, along with the radon question, the carbon 14 i
19 i question.
We were able to extend the analysis up to 1000 years 1
l 20 i into the future, And fortunately, for most of the nuclides of 21 l.
concern, say within the first millenia after release, most of 22 l them are covered in the first few decades, it essentially dies ; wit i
23 h the tritinm and the crypton 85.
I!
24 h The radon question was one that was amenable to Feoeraf Reporters, Inc.
25,!
solution simply because it was a continual release based on i
- a.,
il
2-21 jwb 23 I
how much thorium 230 was in tailings piles, and how much vering was on it.
2 h
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
3 i
'~
t MR. GOTCHY:
So we can do that.
4' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I don't have a firm i
i.
view on how to go here, but it seems to me that just doing it 6;
isotope by isotope is a questionable procedure.
7 It would seem to me that one ought to have some notion as to how far out you want to count, and then apply 9,
l that to all the isotopes.
If they've died out by then, so 10 I
much the better.
And if they go on beyond then, you wouldn't 11 l
count them.
But just sort of going isotope by isotope, depending
/
on whether or not there is a model available, it seems to me g
'l an dd way to proceed.
15 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think -- I think Reg, in 16 his various papers that I've read of his, brings up the point g
S l
that as you go out in time, of course, the impact gets a lot gl!
fuzzier.
)9 i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, of course, but that --
,0 !
4 I
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think mainly because of 21 g q demography.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But that's just what I mean.'
23 ;
i I mean, that would be one factor that would enter into some 24ll
.F.cus neoorters, inc. i approach, or a model, or talk to a conceptual framework, and 25 e
h
2,22 jwb 24 1
this is one of the considerations, and you may just conclude 2
that at some point things become either so fuzzy, or so far o
3; off in time that you're just not going to consider them.
l
~
But it seems to me this has got to be put together l
4 5
and put down in black and white.
I 6 !
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, the work that's been 7
done I think has been Reg -- Dr. Gotchy's work, and it's been --
8 it's held up in reactor hearings --
9 9
MR. MIRAGLIA:
And it will be part of this 10 rule making that Dr. Lerohl was talking about on the radon.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, when you say it will 12 '
be part of the rule-making, focused specifically on radon as
(
13 Dr. Gotchy was describing?
Or on the general philosophical 14 approach that --
l 15 j MR. MIRAGLIA:
I think it would probably, i
16 l at this point in time, be focused on radon.
ll i
Isn't that fair?
17 l 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me that this is 19 q a fundamental-enough point that it ought to be up before the I
20 t Commission, and that's where it ought to get decided.
1 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes --
l 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Across the board.
22l 23 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think -- I don't disagree i
24 l with that, certainly.
I can foresee problems, especially
.Feceral Reporten, Inc.
25 with the isotope by isotope thing, necause we're talking about i
i N
2-23 jwb 25 a thousand years for radon, with the 80,000-year thorium grandparent, and EPA in their rule is talking about 10,000
,l years.
So it -- I don't know what the answer is, but it is i
~
I something that needs -- we need to come to grips with.
And s
4l whether we come to grips with it in the rule-making procedure, 5
like for example the radon one, or through some other i
I mechanism, I can't say.
But we were talking -- we were thinking --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I'm not sure what the real 9
options are, other than rule-making.
10 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, that's it.
If you do jj it in a rule-making context, then you have something that you can see it in the framework of something you're trying to
../
j accomplish.
If you do it in the abstract, it doesn't have 14,
quite as much meaning.
15 I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess I would tend to go I.
along with Vic.
I think that it's a general question that
.i really should be addressed more across-the-board than one --
g 39 ;
you can fit the one-by-ones in, once you've addressed -- had d
h the general framework.
,01 4
i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Are you suggesting only that if one is going to even take that approach -- I'm not fully 22 p, a
'i prepared to say.
In principle, it sounds right.
I guess I'm
,3 Il i
n t quite sure whether it would work out that way.
But in any 24
-Fewal Rmorms, lm. 't J
event, even if it did, I would suggest that it too ought to be t
'l i
lli.
2-24 jwb 26 In -
l 1
done in a rule-making context, not just a generalized policy i
l 2
Statement without the kind of intensive scrutiny on the part il 3 J of all interested parties a rule-making would afford, with i
I 4'
the stature and basis for the conclusion, whatever it would be.
l S.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
In. either option that we 've 6,
set forth to the Commission, this sort of thing would be done 1
7 in a rule-making.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEAENE:
I'm not saying that it 9
shouldn' t be a r21e making.
I had frankly, until Vic started 10.
probing, I had thought that in your update that was part of h
11 it.
But I'm beginning to get the sense that that really 12 wasn't, and that does disturb me, because I would have C./
N 13 thought that that would --
14 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, as you deal with the 15 j various isotopes of interest, or the update, instead of --
16 '
would propose, in due time, a rule which, instead of having g
il 17 "
simply an S-3 table, it says:
How here are the number of Il 18 q curies that come out from this source,
- and this source, and k
19 ;
this source; it would say, and furthermore, here are the Il 20 !
exposure pathways, and the dose commitments then are thus and 21 I
so, and presumably the health effects also would fall from 22l that.
I 23 Now you deal, then, with the dose commitments 1
24 :
from each of the isotopes of significance that are listed in
- F.emi peoorms, inc. l 25 j the table, and the integration time in question is indeed a i
b
!l i
11 i,
2-25 jwb 27 part of that.
1 I
I think it's not so clear from this point, but j
2
.i 3
what?
Trying to enunciate some great general principle in advance of treating the individual isotopes, it's not clear 4
to me that that may not be a more difficult and uncertain 3cc 5l 6j than looking at what the isotopes of interest are, and what i
makes sense in terms of the periods over which they're 7
i calculated.
8 The proposition that's been set forward here is to 9
10 calculate forward as long as they believe that they have any I!
11 reasonable meaningful basis to calculate in itself.
As you 12 go on up in time and go through a sort of ice ages and God 13 knows what else, why it becomes -- you know, it then becomes i
14 very speculative on what it all means, if anything, and some 15 sort of cutoff becomes reasonable.
16 But that may differ from isotope ~, to isotope.
Its i
17 p principle, it seems to me -- at least that we're working on l
18 I at the moment -- is a not unreasonable one.
And that is, to 19 ;
see, you know, what can be modeled in a meaningful way, and i
20 t how far that takes you into the future, and so on.
I 21 So the proposition is not without some guiding i
22 principles.
And I wouldn't be surprised but what, as I say, 23 !;
trying to formulate a general propositiun and enunciate that, 1
24 !;
and support it and understand what it means in all cases, 4.emi neoonm. anc. ll 25 g might very well turn out to be a substantially greater job
,i d'
3 I
2-26 jwb 28 l
I than simply dealing with the isotopes of interest.
I 2
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, but it doesn't make 3i much sense to calculate some-odd-hundred-thousand years, and i
x-4 worry about a thousand years, just to say they have comparable,
5 half-lives, just because you don't have -- you have a model 6
for one and you don't have a model for the other.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I doubt that goes on.
8 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, we haven't had to face 9
that, and I do think that --
10,
COMMISSIONZR KENNEDY:
Lxcuse me, Dick.
I want to 11 be sure I understand what you just said.
When you say "we 12 haven't had to face that," does that imply that, you know, we 13 might?
14 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, yes.
Well, we've got to i
15 l face it here.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, that gets to the point g
i 17 that Mr. Gilinsky was talking about.
18 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I'm sorry, we haven't had to face 19 1 it yet in some of these proceedings we've had, because we've I
20 l just been talking about one isotope, really, and that's radon i
21 and its parents.
22 l After some time, though, with radium, I guess I 231 Personally can't see the distinction between talking -- arguing I!
24 hl between 1000 years and 10,000 years.
It doesn't make much Joceral Reoorters, Inc. {
25 j difference whether the isotope has a 100,000-years.'. half-life it li I!
2-27 jwb 29 t
or a 200,000-years' half-life.
I just can't see how much t
difference that makes.
l 2
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
For what reason?
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Because unless you calculate to infinity, if you're talking about a 1000-year time span, th:t's i
i very finite a time span, or a 10,000-year time span, and you 6 l1 h
still have the problem with you with radium, from its parents, 7
or from technetium that has a longer half-life, the problems won't go away.
9 Now if you calculate each isotope --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But I -- Help me understand 3) how that equates to saying that it really doesn't make any
,2 difference whether you're talking about 1000 or 10,000 years.
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I'm saying that --
g
~~
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't think that's what he's g
saying.
j7 l
"9 18 he said.
39 l a
e s sanng is:
For any 20 i I
given period of integration, be it 100, 1000, or 10,000, if g
you have.. couple of isotopes both of whose half-lives are g
substantially longer than that period, but in turn are maybe 23 ll a factor of 10 or more different, you know, it just -- it
,4 Jemal Rams, inc. I isn't going to make that much difference, you see?
h I
2 -28 jwb 30 l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
All right.
y CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But it's just a question of the 2
ratio of the half-life.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But who says that you're 4
Supposed to calculate out to 1000 years, or 10,000, or 5
100,000, whatever?
6 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, I think --
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me that the 8
length of time that's involved can wait for these balances, 9
10 I or -- one way or the other.
11 MR. LOWENBURG:
And to that extent, this is related -- this issue, about period of dose and how long 12
.to integrate those was related to the petition that was before 13 the Commission when it removed radon.
14 I
And at that period of time, the staff said they 15 16, weren't prepared to address the issue in a generic rule-making (lip bu 17 way, and the Commissioner's direction was to handle them 18 in an individual proceeding.
And the Staff has been going in 19 individual proceedings and has been integrating doses for
~
20 radon up to 1000 years.
And as Dr. Gotchy says, even carbon i
v u
l 14 up to 1000 years.
21 22 And the cutoff isn't as arbitrary as saying --ithey
'~
are going out to 1000 years because they ate long half life, 23 r- -. :-.. _..
24 we do have models and we can make some meaningful predictions 2e out that far in the future.
I
31 2-29 jwb1 So these..ssues are being discussed in the context j
f 2
of an individual proceeding.
I 3
The question you are asking is that should there 4
be a general overall policy or a general rulemaking was s-5 discussed the last time we were meeting here on February 1st, 6
and we said that is possible to perhaps either discuss in a 7
separate rulemaking or as part of an upcoming rulemaking, 8
such as the update.
9 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think on your point, 10 !
Commissioner Gilinsky, as I understand it from what I have II read of these various proceedings, the limit of 1000 years 12 is not because the radioactivity goes away.
(
1s 15 i
16 17 18 19 l 20 I
i 21 22 l
.3
{
i 24 l Faceral Reporters, Inc.
25
9.04.1 32 gsh I
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
It is simply because you 4
can't -- the vaguene ss of the demograohy and a f ew f actors x_.
5 like that, the thing becomes so vague, you really can't tell 6
what the do e is.
s 7
And those are the types of things that lim.it how far you 8
can project and the oasis for any cut-off of a thousand years.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSK'/: Sure.
But that's a pretty 10 arbitrary cut-off. And since, in some cases, you are talking 11 about much longer half-lives, the effects if you go to 12 10,000. years or 10 times, n'hatever --
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Just don't go beyond the time the 14 sun is expected to burn.out.
15 COMMISSIaiER GILINSKY: It's not clear how far we 16 ought to go.
It's not clear that it ought to be terribly 17 long, or whatever.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It's not even clear that the 19 cut-off ought to be in terms of an integration time.
But 20 COW 4ISSIONER GILINSKY: I'm just using that as 21 a short-hand for talking about it.
22 CHAIR'4AN HENDRIE: -- but in terms of a dose, 23 individual dose, where you say, once the individual dose is 24 at a certain level, wny, you just stop adding them up.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That's another kind of rule.
59.b4.2 33 gsh i
I just use this other example as just a short-hand for talking 2
about it.
3 But whatever approach is taken, is, I think, one that 4
ought to get the commission's imprimatur.
I think it's a L
5 fundamental enough point and it cuts across so many of the 6
activities of the agency and public concerns, that I think 7
it's a cuestion the commission ought to deal with.
3 MR. CUNNINGHAM: In the form of perhaps initially, 9
at least, of a sta.ff paper which would outline how tne staff 10 plans to proceed on what its recommendations are for 11 guidance on thes.e various rule-making procedures --
12 COMMISSI0 DER GILINSKY: I certainly would like to 13 know what the staff is thinking about. I guess I had thought 14 also that at least one of these options would have resulted
()
15 in addre ssing that cues tion.
16 COMMISSIDAER AHEARNE: Certa inl y --
17 MR. CUNNINGHAM: It has to be addressed.
It's 18 embodied in this.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: 3ut I think it has to be 2]
explicitly addre ssed, although I certain1,y appreciate the 21 points made about the individual nuclides being the ones 22 that you have to end up calculating, and the fact thet you 23 have to utilize the best available models, et cetera.
When 24 you look at what do people exoect of us and what are some of 25 their real concerns, they expect us to a dress their real
34 59.04.3 gsh I
concern of.this -- a lot of the things last f or a long time 2
and they'd like to be able to understand what we're doing 3
about that and how we're addressing it in some way that at 4
least is explainacle without going through this long
- l../
5 list of individual item by item.
6 I recognize when you get down to the actual l ic e ns ing 7
actions, that's what you have to do, the item by item.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let me see if I can move the 9
discu.ssion more nearly back to help us on the S-3 decision.
10 It seems to me that the discussion we have been having 11 which relates to what the status of progre.ss is in the 12 update effort, in part, and then these discussions aoout 13 integration time and the commission attempting to deal with 14 them as a policy matter, that those things, in f act, relate
()
15 to a prospective set of decisions by the commission, probably 16 in a rule-making format.
17 The record before the House in the S-3 matter doesn't 18 focus, I. think, on these things in a way -- in partic ular, 19 this last item -- in a way that would allow you to draw some 20 conclusions and enunciate a rule without substantial f ortner 21 proceedings, it seems to me.
22 The board's summary of the croceecings. and its 23 recommendations, for instance, is devoid of this kind of --
24 MR. MIRAGLIA: I believe the board did have a 25 recommendation with respect to integration time for considera-tion in the update rule of 100 years.
59.04.4 35 gsh I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Just so in terms of the update 2
rule.
3 MR. MIRAGLIA: In terms of the update, yes.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So, in part, we are allowing the i'--
'u 5
discussion here to turn forward from the issue nomina.11y 6
before us and to the equally interest.*.ng 1.ssue of what about 7
the direction and prospects and so on of the future effort.
8 or the effort that's going on now and wil?. result in 9
decisions of the commission in the future?
10 I wonder if we could switch back, pretty soon, at any 11 rate -- Dick, do you have more items you want to enumerate 12 on the update status?
~
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I think only to say that with these 14 additions and changes in some of the approaches on the update
(/
15 rule --- namely, we will try to use more realistic models 16 and put uncertainty bands on those -- that the tables will 17 be somewhat diff erent,- both in content and in format than 18 the present rule.
vie haven't straightened out the format 19 part ye t, but it won't be a matter of lifting some parts that 20 are usable to the present rule and putting them in the 21 update rule.
22 I think it will all be changed around f airly nuch.
23 So there isn't going to be too much transf er of a lot of 24 the ones that's been already done.
25 COMMISSIO.1ER GILIUSKY: Well, but the work must ce
9.04.5 36 gsh I
usable.
2 MR. CUNNIdGHAM: Oh, yes.
3 COMMISSIO3ER GILINSKY: I mean you're just talking 4
about si ssoring --
(_e 5
MR. CUNNINGHAM: No.
6 COMMI SSIONER AHEARNE: It's a little bit more than 7
that.
8 MR. CUNNINGHAM: If you're using new models, that's 9
something else.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I s ee.
11 Can I just go back to the Chairman's point?
You were 12 saying that the cuestion of the integration time or possibly 13 a dose cut-off alternative formulation is not before us.
14 But we do have this board recommendation and we have a staff
()
15 practice which is -- we are aware of, and the auestion is 16 do we approve of those or not.
17 So it seems to me one way or another you deal with it 18 either by explicitly dealing 'vith it or allowing it to 19 continue.
20 So I think it is before us.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We ll, in the general sense that 22 the commission has before it at any tine prospective decisions 23 on how the staff is doing things and how cases are coming out, 24 and so on.
25 But in terms of the S-3 rule-making proceeding, there has I
59.04.6 37 gsh I
been a substantial proceeding here.
It went forward on a c rtain basis and a certain body of information was de veloped.
2 e
3 We have had a board which has compiled the information into 4
a summary, which is also at our request provided its 5
recommendation as to the nature of the action the commission 6
ougnt to take based on this proceeding.
7 Among their recommendations, their base recommendation is 8
that the suitably amended S-3 table be adapted by the 9
commission with regard to these values for re processing and 10 waste management that were at issue in the rule-making.
Il They also recommended that we consider -- that we ask. that 12 an explanatory narrative be prepared.
But they note that 13 that will have to be the subject of additional rule-making.
14 Okay.
The staff an its part.says, why don't we supply
(
15 the additional -- why don't we understand that in any case 16 where the S-3 table can be used, that the explanatory 17 narrative is to be provided in the context of the papers of 18 that particrilar case, and that, in effect, we would pick up 19 t'ar generic treatment of these things when we get to the 20 update situation.
21 Now I just keep trying to encourage the discussion to move 22 back toward what seeraed to me to be the rather narrower 23 questions on the S-3 decision, rather thar. these broader ones 24 which treat very important policy issues, to be sure, but 25 seem to me to run sort of beyond the particular paper here.
59.04.7 38 gsh I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, as I understood 2
option B, and correct me if I am wrong, I thought it 3
encompassed that question.
4 MR. EILPERIN: I think that's right.
I don't think 5
anyone is proposing that right now as part and parcel of 6
the decision on S-3 that the commission adopt the narrative.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You couldn't do it.
You haven't 8
got a basis for it in this proceeding.
The board has said 9
as much, and I think it. would be very hard for the commission 10 to say no, no, the board is wrong.
Ji MR. EILPERIN: That's right. And as we saw it, one 12 principal issue was to what extent could the commission or wo ld the commission care to direct the staff to at this 13 u
14 point surface the issues dealing integration times and
()
15 population dose commitments and matters of that sort, in 16 advance of a more specific update of the numbers and the 17 specific models in the rule.
18 I think it would be -- it would certainly be useful 19 whether the commission wanted to move that up or not, to 20 make clear commission desire, or if the commission so desires, 21 for the S-3 update, to, in fact, propose a narrative and to, 22 in fact, in that proposed narrative, set out methodology 23 for addre.ssing questions of long dose significance.
24 I think part of the discussion here today has indicated 25 that it is not at all certain.
That is really part and parcel
)
59.04.8 39 gsh I
of the S-3 update in terms of the overall methodology.
2 MR. SLAGGIE As we drafted option B, we did 3
suggest the narrative would be prepared on an expedited a
basis.
(s 5
I think the idea was it would be done apart from and in 6
advance of the total update, and that it would specifically 7
address, among other things, the question of the integration 8
t im e, though we didn't say what the answer would be.
9 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I think if you look at page 2 of 10 this thing that was handed out, it tries to estimate what 11 the impact would be following option B.
12 I'think it's optimistic. I think you will notice there we 13 deal with dose commitments which would have to include the 14 integration time.
(I 15 I think what we were thinking about, 9 man-months, we were 16 thinking in terms of being pretty well along because the 17 radon --
18 MR. MIRAGLIA: Just document ing the staff's approach.
19 MR. CUNNINGHAM: -- withstood some li t iga t io n. Now 20 I am not at all sure that that would be quite that simple.
21 But if wa were to move ahead with this, I think the 22 bottom line is that it probably would take 7 to 9 months to 23 do optimistically.
It would put us a couple of months 24 behind on the final update.
25 Certainly, cost some money.
And the work here, I must j
40 59.04.9 gsh point out -- it's very difficult to tell at this point how 2
much of it would be used in the update rule because when we 3
do the work under option S, it has to be related to specif.ic 4
tables and things that are currently in the record.
-~
k.
5 And so we have some boundaries on us on how much we can 6
do and what we would do and what form it's in.
Some of it 7
will be transferrable.
Some of it would probably not be 8
transferrable and I just don't know how much it would be.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: A din of silence.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Should I ask some questions?
11 (Laughter.)
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I wish you would or I might have 13 to make another speech myself.
14 (Laughter.)
()
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: First, Dick, last time when 16 we met, you had mentioned that you had just received that 17 morning the OGC memo.
18 MR. CUIETINGHAM: Right.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And so you really were giving 20 us your initial impressions.
21 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes.
22 COMMI SSIOJER AHEARNE: Do I gather correctly that 23 on retrospect, you still have concluded that option A is 24 really the only -- the way you would recommend going with 25 res pect to that memo?
~
9.04.10 41 gsh 1
MR. CUNNINGHAM: I personally would, yes.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Let me ask if it's acpropriate 3
for the staff to answer that question?
~'
4 I get the feeling that there, at least, some legal opinion ss 5
would suogest it does not.
6 MR. EILPERIN: I think it would be best to stick to 7
questions dealing with statements.
3 COMMISSI0 DER KENNEDY: The answer to the question is 9
no, it's not appropriate to answer that question.
Am I 10 correct?
.11 COMMISSI0 DER AHEARNE: Are you saying that we have 12 a memo which the OGC has written and that the staff cannot 13 provide its advice or its comments on that memo?
14 MR. EILPERIN: I think Jim Murray has suggested that k_/
15 he fe,1t uncomfortable with the staff adopting an advocacy 16 role, or adopting a particular position --
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Other than that already 19 stated in its own papers.
19 MR. EILPERIN: (Nods in the a ffirmative. )
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would suggest at least an 21 initial reading of the transcript of February 1st, 22 then.
23 Nevertheless, with respect to your estimate of the
- 24 difference of time it would take to do these, to do the 25 option B proposal, I gather you are saying it would take m
42 59.04.11 gsh 1
7 to 9 months to develop the narrative and go through the 2
proceeding that would be necessary, the hearing proceeding, 3
so that your estimate would be at the end of 9 months, one 4
could have in place, if we went that route, the narrative
'^
5 plus adopting the tables of the modified S-3, as recommended 6
by the board.
7 Is that correct?
8 M.4. CUNNINGHAM: That's correct, 7 to 9 months --
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: So roughly, at the end of --
10 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I would say at the end of the 11 year, if everything goes well.
12 MR. LOWENSURG: That's only for the back end of the 13 fuel cycle.
14 COMMISSIOJER AHEARNE: I understand that.
()
15 MR. CUNNINGHAM: There are a couple of. things. I 16 personally am inclined to believe it's a little bit optimistic.
17 But if everything goes well, there are a couple of problems on 13 the horizon, and that is the question of dose commitment, 19 how far in time we integrate.
20 I think that's an issue that can be debated a long time.
21 The other thing is, again, the 3EIR-3 report on health 22 e ff ects, because if that comes out, that in itself is subject 23 to a large amount of debate.
24 Then if we don't adopt BEIR-3, we will have a proolem on 25 one side.
If we adopt it, we might have a problem on the
43 9.04.12 gsn I
other.
2 So BEIR-3, if it comes out, it has to settle down before 3
we can use it.
4 COMMISSIOJER AHEARNE: Are you saying can use it v
5 with respect to the narrative?
6 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, sir, because the narrative 7
would talk about health effects. Of course, there is 3
opportunity to go ahead with the narrative without some of 9
these things we have listed.
10 COUMISSIONER KENNEDY: Dick, this is a narrative 11 which presumably would ce developed in any case; that is, it 12 is not a narrative for option 3.
It is a narrative for, indeed, 13 either of the options, a narrative which would be necessary 14 from the board's point of view, for any long-term rule.
Os 15 Isn't that right?
16 MR. CUNNIdGHAM: Yes.
17 Co.FMI SSIONER KENNEDY: I want to be sure we know.
13 MR. LohENBURG: This is just for the back end.
19 CO.31MISSIONER AHEARNE: The narrative for the update 20 rule addresses across the board's olus.
The update rule, 21 as I understand a lot of the discussion, may be different, 22 substantially different, in accroach.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: ilhat I'n talking about --
24 okay.
What I an asking is the narrative that we are talking 25 about here then is a different narrative.
It is a very
59.04.13 44 gsh I
precise one, dealing with only this portion -- that is, the 2
back end of the fuel cycle.
3 MR. CUIMINGHAM: Right.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And tne existing S-3 rule s_.
5 as slightly modified by the board.
6 COMMISSIOJE'R KENNEDY: Okay. That's wnat I was trying 7
to get clear.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Wait a minute.
~
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDf: de are creating permutations 10 on top of permutations.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I'm not creating anything.
12 I'm just trying to understand.
13 COMMISSIOJER KE!INEDY: What I'm hearing is a whole 14 series of it.
t-15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If you are going to draw upon t,ne 16 body of information that's been developed in this proceeding, 17 then the narrative that you would develop can only speak to 19 impacts which arise in reprocessing and waste-managements, 19 because that's what's in tnis proceeding.
20 COMMISSIOlER AHEARNE: Right.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So anything else in the 6-3 22 taole --
23 MR. EILPERIJ: I don't think tnat's correct as a 24 legal matter because the narrative itself would'be subject to 25 its own rule-making and could cover whatever scope one wants
9.04.14 45 gsh I
to give the narrative.
2 CHAIRsiAN HENDRIE: True.
3 MR. LoriEN3URG: You have to have a record, though.
4 CHAIRMAN HE:iDRIE: But does one want to go -- we
~
5 have talked acout the possibility of a 7-to 9-month 6
rule-naking on this narrative, and that sounds like notice 7
and comment to me.
And to develop within thet frame-work 8
the basis for dose commitments and neelth effects outside 9
the reprocessing in waste management areas sounds to ne like 10 a pretty big order.
11 COMMI SSIO.iER KE:.'.iEDY: But we're going to have an 12 updated rule, if I understand it.
Ne're coing to have the 13 basis for an updated table next October, including the 14 front end.
k 15 MR. CUUNI:lGHA:4: That's correct.
16 COF.MI.SSIO.IER KENilEDY : 3o it is then possible that '
17 one could oe writing such a narrative because there would be IS a dditional da ta. Obviously, that narrative, in either event, 19 however it is written, that narrative would be essentially 2]
subject to its own rule-makina proceeding.
21 CHAIR:C'1 dENDRIE: Start ing in October.
22 CDI.'MI SS I O.iER AHE AR:iE : But Joe, you had mentioned --
23 COMMISSI0iiER XEN;1EDY: But if we write one now on 24 the back end, have it ready in Octooer for com,ent.
Right?
25
46l 2159 MI
-5 mte 1 1
MR. CUMUINGHAM:
Under Option --
2 COMMISSIONER IGNMEDY:
Never mind these options.
3.
MR. CUNMINGHAM:
When you write the narrative for 1
4 the back end, to support the proceeding on the back end of the 5
fuel cycle, that would be ready roughly in October, is it?
I 6
Six to nine months, somewhere in there, plus public notice and 7
diat sort of thing.
8 That narrative, though, is not transferable to the j
l 9
narrative that would need to be developed for the complete 10 I update, because there are dif ferent models being used, differ-l Il ent tables, different formats, for a number of reasons.
It 12 won't be transferable.
(
13 COF2iISSIONER KEnliEDY:
Okay, I understand that.
But i
14 at the same time, that is next October.
All the data fron l
l 15 those models, presumably all the data necessary to cast up a l
l 16 new table for a new final rule will be available also?
j 17 MR. CUNNINGIIAM:
That is correct.
18 CO!EiISSIONER KENNEDY:
At which point -- at that 19
- time, a narrative covering the entire table could be developed 20 and would be.
4 I
21 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
It would be part of the package 22 that comes foraard.
23 COWiISSIONER KEUUEDY:
It would be part of the 24 package, so it would be coming when, approximately --
l Foceral Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
October.
I I
te 2 47 1
COfiliISSIONER KE1HTEDY:
October.
So if you started 2
today to develop a narrative, it would be ready for the back 3
end of the fuel cyclo -- based upon this table, if you don ' t 4
do anythin'g but proceed, you are going to have a whole new s
t 5
table with a narrative applicable to it available at the same 6
time.
That's what I was trying to ascertain.
7 fir. CUNNINGHAM:
That's right.
8 COlifiISSIONER AHEARNE:
But it is also true, isn ' t l
9 it, Dick, that the only way you can have the second, the i
10 !
whole table there ready is not to take the intermediate step?
II If we took the intermediate step, we have got to push it off.
12
~
MR.'fiIRAGLIA:
That 's exactly right.
13 COM?iISSIONER KENNEDY:
How far do you push it off? '
14
. COIfiISSIONER AHEAPl1E:
That's what they had estimated, 15
?!R. CUIRTINGHAli:
We estimate two months.
Again, I i
i 16 think that's probably a little optimistic.
But somewhere around 17 two months, perhaps.
i 18 liR. LEROHL:
Two months of study time, plus whatever l
19 time it takes to run this hearing, which could be three, four i
20 months.
l 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or much more.
i 22 I wonder -- do you have other questions that you I
23 would like to ask?
Go ahead.
24 COft!1ISSIONER AHEARNE:
On the update, the general Feceral Reporters, l.v 25 update, there has been this very extensive record established l
e i
48 te 3
- 1 with respect to these two elements in the existing S-3 rule.
2 With regard to the update rule, what kind of precedures do you 3
think are going to have to be followed in order to get that l
l 4
accepted as a final rule?
i l
5 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
You mean hearing and that sort of i
6 thing?
I would have to bow to the lawyers.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I don't know who's going to 8
answer the question.
9 fir. EILPERIN:
Certainly, as a pure matter of law,
\\
10 the Commission could adopt notice and comment procedures, 11 Whether the Comnission considers that more kinds of I
i 12 procedures that we use for the back end update led to better l
13 infornation and better rules --
{-
14 CO12iISSIONER AHEARNE:
My concern is that, for 15 whatever reason, there was felt to be a necessity to go to this 16 very extensive procedure to address two itens in part of the l
17 existing S-3 table.
We are hearing that the revisi ;n may be 18 a substantial changes -- different models, different approach, t
19 a substantial change.
And it's at least a priori not obvious i
20 to me why you wouldn't have to go through a similarly extensive ;
21 proceeding with that kind of a change.
22 MR. EILPERIU:
All I can say is that you retain your 23 discretion to have something less than vou had immediately just 24 past gone through.
And I think part of your decision would be afewal Roorurs, lm, 25 whether or not the candle was worth the effort, whether all i
i k
1 4
te 4 '
49 I
that time that was passed on it was worth it.
2 MR. CUNUINGHAM :
I think, though, that there are --
3 this update embodies some very important issues.
One discussed I
4 how far you go out in dose integration, the question of socio-5 economic impacts and the question of health effects, if that l
l 6
isn't debated in some other arena.
And I think it will be 7
the first time it comes up to the Commission in this manner, t
8 and it would seem to me that those issues alone would probably i 9
force some sort of a public proceeding.
j l
1 10 MR. MIRAGLIA:
May I make an observation, sir, that 11 might help address your point?
I guess the answer to the l
i 12
' question is, there is no legal reason why it couldn't be just
(]
13 notice and comment.
What Dick is saying is that policy impli-14 cations may suggest you want to go bevond notice and comment.
15 But I think there is an intermsdiate process here d
i 16 diat one should consider as well.
You could conceivably, as l
17 we did in the updated rule, adopt the updated table from the t
1 18 update rule, go through a notice and comment and promulgate a i
I 19 rule and call it interim, while some hearing process ensues.
20 That would also be an option, wouldn' t it, Steve?
21 MR EILPERIN:
Yes, it would be.
22 MR. MIRAGLIA:
So the point I am trying to make is, 23 whatever comes out of this update does not have to wait until 24 the termination of a long hearing process.
There is that co-Federal Reporters, Inc.
I 25 intermediate step.
I
4 4
- ++4>%%< < <g
-eE Ev <e 1,em TEST TARGET (MT-3) l 1.0
' EE DM d
l yllLE I.I
[m Il!!M 1
!,!b $
e.,
=
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART 4%
4 'b
- S!fh#
M+;,).
S, g
f
'i..._...-,...
6.
TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 EEM BH s,[j LE I.l
=
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART
- 4
+44
- ff
- SeA, 4
+%g,3)7_
y,<&,.
Y//
L
te 8 ~
50 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think the last question, 2
without asking you to address, Dick, your preference, the last I
3 I time, when you had first looked at this, you estimated it mighti l
~
4 take you several years to do Option B.
Now I gather that your l.
I 5
current estimate, having had a better chance to "look in detail !
I i
6 at it, is that you could do Option B by the.end of this year.
7 MR. LOWENBURG:
That's in draft.
That 's not in final 8
form.
That's the draf t.
l 9
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It says write the narrative 10 !
and conduct the proceeding.
l 11 MR. LOWENBURG:
But it says update should be in l-12 draft form.
{'
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Option B, though, is not the 14 update.
Option B is the narrative.
I 15 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
T1is is our bes,t estimate.
This l
i 16 assumes that we won't need, in the process of trying to address l 17 some of these issues here, he require to go back into the rule i
18 itself and all that has gone before it and change that around, i l
19 reopen that.
That's one of our concerns.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But the narrative that l
21 you're talking about is the same narrative that Steve was 22 talking about and is the same narrative that the Board was 23 talking about?
24 MR. EILPERIN:
Yes.
a-Fewd Rmorwrs, lm.
25 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
This is our understanding of what
te 5 51 the Board wanted.
)
CHAIRMAli IIEIIDRIE:
Let me see if the Commission, for 2
a change, sees the matter in somewhat the same way as I do.
j 3
1 l
(
(Laughter.)
4 i
Let me outline what I mean by that, lest I immediatelv prejudice the discussion.
Our discussion, most of our discus-sion 2ere today and most of the. other day, has had to do with l
what I will call -- let's see, I was going to call them update 8
questions, but by that I mean update explanatory narrative 9
i sorts of auestions.
10 i I
11 There has been relatively little discussion of the I
Particular values proposed in the amended S-3 table that the 12 Board has recommended to us.
It does seem to me that that --
(
13 14 if I can sense any consensus on anything, why, it does seem l
tio me that we night be able to agree that those values recom-15 16 mended by the Board for the table could be accepted and that that could be promulgated as -- in rule form.
17 seems to me dat de qmsdon of wheder an 18 I
j9 explanatory narrative, which we understand in all options is to be used when S-3 appears in a particular licensing case --
20 i
it seems to me that the question of whether that explanatory l
21 l
22 narrative, whether there should be an effort to go forward now I 23 and conduct a further stage of rulemaking and get it in rule 24 form, or whether to allow the staff to simply prepare and use
-Federal Repcrters, Inc.
25 an appropriate narrative in individual proceedings, that that I
i i
i
52 te 7 '
1 is, in a sense, almost a separate question.
And I would like 2
to see if they are, in your view, separable and if we could 3
deal with the first one and then turn to the second.
i 4
Since I'm looking that way and you are pursing your 5
lips, John, what do you think?
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I find that I come into 7
today's meeting, having reread the transcript of the last 8
session, with one understanding; having it substantially 9
changed, however, by this latest piece of information.
There 's i 10 I quite a significant difference to me to recognize that the time that might be involved in develop.ng this narrative is really l
11 12 substantially shorter than I thought it was, based upon the 13 last meeting.
(
I 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, you understand at an appro- !
15 priate time I'r going to point out to you my reasons for thinkE i
16 ing that it isn' t, and that it's indistinguishable from the l
17 time to put the update rule finally in place.
18 COMt1ISSIONER GILINSKY:
How would you characterize I9 the time?
20 CHAIR!iAN HENDRIE:
Well, nine months versus a couple ;
I 21 of years.
l i
22 COM!!ISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's right.
l l
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Sort of the end of this year l
24 vers us two, three years later.
-Fewal Rmorms, Inc.
25 COWIISSIONER AHEARNE:
As I reread the Board 's t
te $ '
i 53 1
findings, if I an going to agree with the number changes that 2
they are recomnending should be accepted, I am not really sure 3
why I should not also go along with their second recommendation, I
n 4
which is that the narrative be included.
l 5
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But their reconnendation was that !
l 6
the narrative be prepared and be the subject of a further 7
rulemaking.
8 COffiISSIONER AHEARNE:
Correc t ~.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And they don ' t -- they say at a i
10 I future time.
They propose that you adopt S-3 now and nove i
11 forward to the narrative in a future rulemaking.
12 MR. EILPERIN:
Page 61 deals with it.
C-13 cot 21ISSIONER AHEARNE:
Table 1 is that Table S-3 as 14 modified be adopted, and number 2 is that the table should be i.
l 15 accompanied by a brief explanatory narrative.
It doesn't say l
16 in the f uture.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, it does.
t 18 MR. EILPERIN:
Page 61 of the Hearing Board's 19 recommendations.
20 CHAIRMAIT HENDRIE:
Page 64 -- I'm sorry, on page 63 I
l 21 and 64 they detail what they mean by the need for an explanatory 22 narrative.
I refer you to the last couple of lines on page 23 64.
Hopefully -- I quote:
" Hopefully, the narrative could r
24 be adopted as part of the rule in a future proceeding.
It is FemI Repomo, lx.
25 quite clear that you have got to have that proceeding before l
l t
te 9' 54 1
you can adopt the narrative.
There is not a basis for it at 2
the moment in the Board's recommendations and in the present 3
Proposition. "
l l
4 Okay?
l I
5 MR. EILPERIN:
I would just add that I agree with 6
that.
On page G1 the Board does say that:
"(4) The immediate 7
action should include Table S-3 accompanied by a brief explana-8 tory narrative."
9 I agree with the Chairman's judgment that it is i
10 difficult to see what that brief explanatory narrative can be 11 at this point, since one "was not subject to notice and comment.,
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Other, in fact, than a preparation ;
i
(
13 by the staff in an individual licensing procedure.
l i
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or alternatively, a paper l
l 15 which would in fact be nothing more than an expanded statement 16 of considerations by the Comnission in adopting the rule, 17 without much of the language, perhaps, but without the same 18 effect as incorporating the statement in the rule itself.
Isn't 19 that right?
20 MR. E1LPERIN:
Yes.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I recognize --
l 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, there is an option, John,.
1 23 to say, okay, but we will hold up adopting the S-3 table l
24 numbers until we get this other piece of work done.
l m.Fewel Roorun, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Which is what I thought they j
1
te 10 55 1
were recommending.
2 CEAIF.
HENDRIE:
I j us t can ' t read it that way and 3
I don't believe anybody else reads it that way.
Okay?
And it l
4 makes no sense.
You have gone through a rulemaking.
You have l
5 decided -- the Board has decided that the table is appropriately l
6 suppo rted.
They think dhat it needs this additional material 7
for use in a particular case, but they;.recoghize that the 8
record does not support their simply writing out a narrative 9
and saying, this is what we recommend adopting, Commission, j
l 10 because it isn' t there in the proceeding, 11 It has to be done in the future, and I don't read l
i 12 them in any sense as saying, hold up adoption of the table I
([,
13 until you get that done, further comment consistent with the 14 previous one, I think, because it deals with some of the,
i 15 fundamental issues in the proposition -- the dose commitment i
i 16 and then the health effects cuestion, both of those things --
17 that the narrative is going to be hard as hell to write and 18 to get it in shape where we can agree on it as a rule.
I 19 I think it's going to take the full -- and that 20 people are not going to be satisfied to say, all right, you j
l 21 did it for these reprocessing effects, what about radon.
And j
i 22 you can't do it for radon without a separate and much elaborated 23 procedure, until you get to the update stage.
l 24 So I am convinced that if you opt for going forward co-Fece,el Reporters, Inc.
25 with the narrative, the Option B narrative, you are in effect l
l e
mt6 11 ~ '
56 aimply sliding that back and melding it as part of the update.
2 And if you propose you are not going to adopt these numbers we 3
fought over for two years in S-3 until that time, you're saying, l
4 well, ue might as well not have had the S-3 proceeding and 5
never mind all this stuff, throw it out at the end of this
~
6 year, we'll start again, and two or three years af ter that we'l:
7 finally have a fuel cycle environmental report.
COm1ISSIONER AHEARNE:
You disagree, then, with the 8
1 9
estimate of seven to nine months to complete a narrative?
i 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, I do, simply because it i
11 touches -- because that narrative is going to have to deal with :
12 a couple of fundamental questions.
13 The first one is the integration time or the dose
. _s 14 cutoff limit or however one bounds or doesn't bound, in f act, I
i 15 these effects going out into the indefinite future.
And the 16 second one is to translate those dose commitments in a rule, i
I 17 okay?
Not a professional staff nerber's opinion under -- in a 18 hearing, but in a Commission rule, to transfer from dose 19 comnitments to health effects.
i l
20 We ain't done it nowhere so f ar and nobody else has i
i l
21 either, that I know of, in this government.
And if you think I
22 we're going to do that in a little old notice and comment, 23 three or four months give or take in the mails, I think that 24 just isn' t realistic.
co-Federal Reporters, Inc.
I think that issue will have to be seen eventually inl 25
mte 12 57 I
a full-scale public hearing, public proceeding, and that it 2
deserves that kind of an exposure.
I can 't conceive that we 3
would attempt to nake a decision of that kind on -- here 's our l
4 thoughts, folks, here it is in the Federal Register, you've got 50 days to comment, and then we're going to act.
It j us t 5
l 6
isn't going to go that way.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
So you would tend to be back 8
more towards the iseveral year estimate?
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, I think so.
I think so.
Andl l
10 I I think when you get to talking about these things, people II aren't going to want to stop with an isotope that comes out l
12 in reprocessing.
They're going to want to know about all of
(
13 them.
And I think you may as well face doing the whole shebang at once, and do it in the update, and that's why I continue I
I4 15 to urge that we say, okay, look, the Board has recommended a i
i 16 table to us.
Why don't we accept it as the rule?
Thequestionl 17 of the narrative?
My recommendation, I would separate that 18 decision from going with the table now.
But my reconnendation,!
19 when we got to that issue, would be to say that the statement 20 of considerations on the table -- and point out that the s taff f i
21 will provide in their testimony an environmental impact 22 statement, a narrative to be used in individual proceedings,
i 23 and that the issues in it are litigable, if that 's the right 24 word.
4ewsamorms,im.
1 25 MR. EILPERIN:
That's a fine word.
i.
I i
t
te 13 58 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
As indeed they must be, without 2
the general rule.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
And your reason for doing t
4 away with the narrative, so I am clear, is that you believe
\\
1 5
that the issues are sufficiently significant and daat the 6
level of current accepted agreement on them is sufficiently 7
small that this would, whether it's in the update or it's in 8
the narrative, end up requiring an extensive series of.public 9
hearings, developed record,. et cetera, which will end up taking ;
I 10 multi-year or year --
i 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'm convinced of it.
l 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And what use is the S-3 l
()
13 table without these things while a proceeding is going on?
14 Why are we in such a hurry to get out an S-3 table which no one l 15 can possibly make any use of in the decision process?
l 16 CHAIFOUW HENDRIE:
No, it is of use in the decision i
i 17 process.
There are a set of numbers now called S-3, okay?
l ~
ew BU 18 They don't deal with dose comnitments and those numbers don' t i
19 deal with health effects.
What they say is dhat when you i
20 consider an application for a reactor, you recognize that i
i 21 there has to be some fuel cycle -- that there are fuel cycle 22 facilities in support, and on a generic basis we have said 23 that when you consider the effects of this reactor we are 1'
24 building, here is a table that tells you how much of those co Fecerol Reporters, Inc.
25 fuel cycle effects are appropriately apportioned to this
te 14 59 I
reactor.
And the apportionment is in terms of curie releases, 2
acres of land used, gallons of water, barrels of oil.
Okay?
3 Now, to get from those curie releases from the fuel 4
cycle contribution to this reactor over heme the dose commit-5 ments and the health effects, the staff has to provide testi-6 many and make that case, just as they do on the releases from 7
the reactor, the same dose commitment and health effect ca se 8
in the environmental impact s tatement.
Okay?
9 Now, this Table S-3 simply provides an accepted-by-t 10 I rule set of entry numbers for the curie amounts, and we have i
11 got two down here for reprocessing and waste management that 12 had been declared deficient by the court, and this whole pro-b 13 ceeding has been to repair those two numbers.
Now, if you 14 don't repair it, it's not the end of the world.
The staff can 15 litigate those two numbers, just as they currently have to l
16 litigate the dose commitments on the health effects.
17 I am just saying, having put, my God, how many i
18 man-years-cnd how much time and energy into this proceeding, i
19 it seems to me rather a shame not to avail oneself cf at 20 least the repair of those numbers in the S-3.
I I
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But isn't the most important ;
i 22 thing that's come out of this proceeding the reali::ation that i
23 you really do need a translation of these numbers and you 1'
24 really do need --
co-Facetal Reporters, Inc g 25 CIIAIRMAN HEUDRIE:
.I think that very well may be the !
-5 case.
j
CR 2759 -
60 MELTZER t-6 mte 1 1
CHAIRMAN HEZIDRIE:
And all I'm saying, to carry that 2
on into rale forn is a substantial endeavor which you can't 3.
easily uo just on the basis of the --
l
/
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But the practical difference s
5 just strikes me as almost nil, because the interim rui, and I
6 final rule are pretty close.
So it really comes down to --
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The interim rule disappears in e
8 another how many days?
9 MR. EILPERIN:
March 14.
i 10 1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Unless we extend it.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You can decide to extend it. !
12 But the question is, do you want to close out tiiis phase of
()
13 the proceeding and start a new proceeding, or do you want to i
14 consider i t only one proceeding.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Oh, I think you're better off i
16 starting again, because when you come to the update section, 17 as Dick says, to the updated rule, you are probably going to 18 have a somewhat dif ferent format.
It isn ' t going to be j us t 19 the same S-3 table with slightly different numbers.
It's going 20 to be a different format and a different --
i 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That isn't the question in l
~
l 22 any case, it seems to me.
In other words, do you want to put 23 an end to this phase and what we 've been doing?
i 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Just so I agree.
That 's right, co Federal Resurters, Inc.
25 that is the cuestion.
And what I am recommending is that i
i
te 2 61 1
indeed we put an end to this phase and in effect begin to pre-2 Pare for the next one, rather than sort of carry it on.
3.
, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That has obvious advantages,
l
\\"
just putting an end to something that's started.
But the other 4
5 side of it it s eems to me --
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It would almost be a first.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't know.
8 (Laughter. )
9 CHAIR
- TAN HENDRIE:
We don't move fast, but we do sort i
10 of lump along.
i 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I guess' patience is the word l
I 12 that would apply.
(
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Go ahead.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's not exactly regulatory.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We march to a different i
16 drummer.
t 17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's a regulated activity l
18 now.
19 (Laughter. )
i i
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Are you warning up for l
21 tomorrow?
22 (Laughter.)
23 QOMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The other side of it, it i
24 seems to me, is that keeping it -- keeping that proceeding 1
nFmmsawomn.w.
25 open more or less keeps everyone 's feet to the fire, and I
[
l s
mte 3' l
62 I
think that there is a greater urgency about it.
These things 2
tend to move slowly for a lot of reasons, and I have a feeling 3l that it would move a little faster if it meant continuing with
-~
\\s 4
the interim rule and completing the narrative as part of the 1
5 initial proceeding.
l 6
COMiISSIONER AHEARNE:
I have got to come back to that 7
again.
Joe, while I have reread this again, the recommendations 8
of the Hearing Board, they separated into three pieces:
There 9
was_ update as a separate section.
And yes, they recognized
{
10 that the narrative would have to have an addi anal hearing.
11 Obviously, they recognized they didn 't have the basis.
But l
12 these are the three people that we charged with spending a
(
13 vast amount of time going through all of this record and 14 establishing it and looking at it and listening.
And their l
15 conclusions were that the numbers should be slightly nodified, j l
16 but that the narrative was essential.
And I don't see how j
i 17 we can accept part of it and not accept the rest of it.
18 CHAIRMAN H ENDRIE I don't think I'm asking you to
]
19 accept part of it and not the rest of it.
Thereisnoquestionj 20 that in every case where S-3 will be used there will be an i
21 explanatory narrative.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Which a t leas t I, as one-fifthli 23 of the voting here, will not have anything to do with saying, 24 yes I agree with it or I disagree with it.
FMwW Recmnus, lrm.
l 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Or at least if you do --
l I
te 4 63 1
CHAIRfiAN HENDRIE:
Neither do you prepare the 2
testimony for the regulatory staff on the myriad of issues 3
that appear in an individual case.
l t
4 COfMISSIGNER AHEARNE:
That's right.
But the Board I
i 5
here was saying --
i 6
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would be glad to certify to 7
this Board a question from the Commission saying:
Well, was 8
it your intention that the adoption of the S-3 table be held 9
up until the further proceeding on the explanatory narrative l
10 be completed?
I'm totally confident of what they will say.
11 (Laughter. )
12 COliMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In such a case, I move that C
13 we so ask.
i 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
They 've laid it out here.
l 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think it would be useful if 16 we could just do something.
I 17 CHAIR 11AN HENDRIE:
Is that in doubt in your mind or i
18 what?
4 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would like the question --
l l
20 COMtiISSIONER KENNEDY:
The regulatory process is 21 decisionmaking.
That means we do something.
22 COffiISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is in doubt in my mind 23 that they were say ng that if the option was use the numbers l
24 without the narrative or hold up the numbers until the narrative co-Faceral Reporters, Inc.
i 25 is developed, yes, it's in doubt in my mind which --
1 4
te 5 64 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Nobody has suggested here, there 2
or anyplace in the whole proceeding that these numbers be us ed 3
in an environmental impact statement without the narrative.
l 4
COMl;ISSIONER AHEARNE:
Without the narrative that l
5 daey're recommending as established by this generic principle j
l 6
narrative.
Obviously, they knew that in each case the staff 7
currently provides a narrative explanation, and they didn' t l
1 8
say --
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And they are recommending, they 10 I are saying, A, that should indeed be done, and, B, we should 11 move foruard and adopt -- and try to adopt that narrative on 12 a generic basis as a rule, adopt it through a further pro-(
13 ceeding.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
That's different than l 15 the update, tho ugh.
i 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That 's different than the update, j 17 that's correct.
l 18 COMMISSIONER AIIEARNE:
Right.
And what I'm saying 19 is, I think your proposal was to adopt the numbers and then i
20 go to the update and eliminate that ddle step.
l 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
l i
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
AnJ as I said, that's what l
23 I'm having difficulty with.
If I accept their numbers, then I 24 think I ought to accept also the need for going to the explana-
-Fmwel Rmorters, lm, 25 to ry na rrative.
i l
mte 6 65 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.?
No, no, you're not phrasing it 2
right.
What you mean is that you want to accept their propo-3 sition of going to an explanatory narrative in rule forn at i
-s si 4
this time, i
I 5
Now, I have to ask you:
Suppose we voted in fact t
l 6
to go to an explanatory narrative and to ask the staff to attempt 7
to prepare one which we would send out for comment, with a view 8
to adopting it as a generic rule as part of the table.
9 CO!1?iTSSIONER KENNEDY:
Meanwhile, leaving in place 1l 10 1 the interim rule, correct?
{
11 CHAIRf1AN HENDRIE:
No.
Suppose we agreed that we l
l 12 were going to do that.
Would you propose then not to adopt
(,
13 the reprocessing and waste nanagement numbers in the modified 14 S-3 table?
15 CO!91ISSIONER AHEARNE:
No.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Would you propose that all 17 licensing proceedings dhat might have to use it defer until i
18 the generic statement is available?
19 COliMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No.
I 20 CHAIR"AN HENDRIE:
So you would go ahead, you would Proceedings l 21 adopt the table, fix the new numbers in rule form.
i 22 that have to come up would come up with the staff-prepared 23 narra tive.
But there would be a notice -- I am presuming a 24 notice and comment, in view of the time scale that's been eemi amonm, w.
w 25 talked about, a notice and comment initiative to see whether f
mte 7 66 1
that narrative could be adopted as a rule.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Correct, which, at least as l
3 I understand, tracks with the recommendations of the Board.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we can scrape up another l
5 Commissioner, I might even go with you, John, in order to make e
I 6
a co ns ensus, to make a majority position out of it.
- Yes, 7
because it contains -- the only thing that it has in it that I,
8 I would not have suggested is the additional effort to go li I
9 forward and put out for comment a narrative, to prepare and put ;
10 1 out for comment a narrative.
i 11 I would have saved the staff effort that goes into l
12 that, in favor of seeing the staff resource go in and keep on (l
13 working on the update rule.
But since you include in your I
14 proposition that we can adopt the table now, that individual l
l 15 proceedings could go forward on the basis of staff-prepared i
16 statements and the environmental impact statements and testi-I 17 mony, and sort of litigate it case by case for the moment, 18 why, I can bring myself around to that, i
19 Do I have other expressions?
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I will agree with that, no ting ;
in fact, however, by so doing the Commission is delaying fur-21 22 ther the publication for public comment, the update rule.
I 23 MR. EIPERIU:
Could you run down the proposal one I
24 more time, now?
Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Fair enough.
I t
mte 8 67 1
MP.. EILPERIN:
I was trying to take a look at the 2
Board's recommendations.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Page 6, the second paragraph I
4 c f o ther optio ns --
l 5
MR. EILPERIN:
Which --
l 6
CHAIRMAN HENDPIE:
Paragraph 2, i.e.,
the table could 7
be adopted as a final rule while a narrative was prepared for 8
addition at a relatively early date.
Right, John?
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
10 I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Hith the. understanding that until !
I I
11 the narrative is adopted as a generic -- if it's adopted as a 12 rule, as a governing statement, that the staff will in fact
(';
13 prepare for environmental impact statements its own narrative 14 and be prepared to litigate the issues.
I 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How would you describe what 16 we would be doing?
Would we be adopting part of the rule now 17 and part of the rule later?
18 CHAIRMAN FENDRIE:
I think -- it seems to me what i
19 we would be doing is pretty well adopting the Board's recommen '
20 dations as I read the Board's recommendations, and that's 21 precisely what this is.
'.hink so.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
1 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But does that mean that this l
24 rulemaking would still be going on with part of the recommenda !
u Fewal Rmo wes. im.
25 tions?
i i
te b "
'l 68 1
COffiISSIONER AHEARNE:
What the Board recommended was 2
that the Table S-3 as modified would be adopted as the final 3
rule.
V 4
COffiISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
5 COffiISSIONER AHEARNE:
That was number 1.
6 COlBiISSIONER GILINSKY:
Does that close out the S-3 7
proceeding?
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would think so.
9 COf91ISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
i 10 l COfEiISSIONER AHEARNE:
And then they said that there {
11 should be a brief explanatory narrativ, and their words were s
12 something about, adopted as part of the rule in a future pro-0 13 ceeding.
So that's that notice and comment process, I guess, i
14 COfftISSIONER GILINSKY:
How does that differ from 15 Option A?
l i
16 COM?iISSIONER A:IEARNE:
Option A has no narrative 17 being developed, i
18 CIIAIRMAN HENDRIE:
As a rule.
i 19 COfG1ISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is that right?
20 21R. EILPERIN:
The subject of that narrative is what? j l
21 COfiMISSIONER NIIEARNE:
The subject of that narrative l
l 22 is the items as listed by the Hearing Board.
~
23 CHAIRfiAN HENDRIE:
As laid out by the Board.
24 COfiMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But is n ' t the general update l
Faceral Reporters, trE.'
25 the rulemaking?
l t
i
te 10 69 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, yes, but that is going to --
2 in effect, we're saying that's coming anyway.
l 3
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And that's going to be I
l 4
delayed.
l 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So you're going to have three !
6 phases, is that right?
7 CIATRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Now you're going to call 9
this a separate rulemaking, a narrative rulemakinc?
I 10 I CHAIRfiAN HENDRIE:
To adopt a narrative?
I don't 11 know.
I must say I defer to counsel.
But there would seem 12 to be an inclination to call the S-3 at an end.
But clearly, 13 this notico and comment will refer to the record and the views
{'_
i 14 of parties and so on in the S-3 proceeding.
But I think l
15 that's all right, isn't it?
16 CO!1MISSIONER AHEARNE:
As far as the legalism went, l
17 I was relying on the f act that that 's what the Board recommended, 18 that the general counsel or the solicitor did not take exception i
19 to that as being part of the Board's recommendation.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
He even nodded, John.
i 21 COtuiISSIONER AHEARNE:
And agreed with the Chairman 22 when the Chairman so vigorously suggested that that was what
('
23 they had recommended, and he even suggested as an alternative i
24 in this paper of his, so it must have been legally acceptable.
a-Fenai smomn. ix.
25 MR. EILPERIN:
That's right, it's clearly legally
te 11 70 1
acceptaale to promulgate an S-3 rule which has numbers in it 2
and then to have notice and comment which would deal with the 3
narrative portion, rather than having that litigated.
v 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Which would be a supplement l
,e to the rule, which were the Board's words,
i l
6 CRAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And our statement of considerations 7
in. adopting the table will certainly speak to this further act.
8 We ' ll sp eak, A, to this further action we are putting in motion l l
9 with regard to the narrative, as well as, I would think, taking'i i
10 note that there is a ganeral update on the way, because the
{
11 Board, af ter all, has made some comments about it, and I think 12 it's appropriate that the Commission in its statement be cogni-
{
13 zant of that.
i 14 I daresay what we will do is direct the staff to l
I 15 take those comments of the Board into account as it prepares 16 for the update.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This is the seven to nine 18 months?
i i
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
- Right, i
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why do you think you can l
21 avoid the problems daat you were laying out earlier?
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't.
I 'm j ust looking for -- l I
23 you know, I am looking for some intersection of the five sets.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Something that gets these a Fewal Rumrms, l%
25 numbers adopted?
l l
i 6
.te 12 71 1
CHAIRMAN HEUDRIE:
Yes.
2 CO!EiISSIONER GILINSKY:
And then John will learn what 3
he 's getting into, j
I j
s 4
(Laughter. )
i 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or one of us will.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Either I am wrong and it will go 7
forward, in which case that's what I should have been advocating i
8 from the beginning, or it will turn out that I'm right and I
9 things bog down, and we may then, at some point towards the end!
10 I of the year, have to come to a point where we say, we withdraw Il the proposed narrative and never mind that, folks, because we 're i
12
. ready to go ahead with the general update which attacks the
(]'
13 same problems in a broader base and we prefer t'o transfer the 14 arguments into that forum.
I.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, one thing I have alreadyl 6
16 learned, that a comnent from the Chairman is listened to 17 carefully by the staff.
Let me point out, I don't see how i
i 18 that can happen, Joe, because the staff has already said that t
19 in order to do this narrative dney have to defer some of the 20 general update.
Now, if the general update turns out to be 21 ready before the proposed narrative is, that means --
i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'm not thinking that such an 22 l
23 outcome would be a result of the way things turned out in the 24 staff process, John.
I'm just thinking we might come down co-Focers Reporters, Inc.
25 toward the end of the year and find ourselves in terms of a I
i 6
' mte '13' 72 I
notice and comment proceeding --
2 COMMISSIONER RENNEDY:
Consideration of a comment.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- just getting a pretty s avage I
4 comment that that's not an adequate way: to treat some of these l
5 issues, that people don't feel they are getting a chance to j
l 6
put their points of view sufficiently well out and get them 7
discussed and so on.
8 I am just allowing for the possibility that on such 9
an account the Commission might decide to, you know, defer to i
10 I the more general update or to roll the two together somehow.
l
'1 You know, I continue to feel that because the issues are l
12 pretty profound, that people are going to want a good whack at
(~
13 the whole thing.
But I'n willing to-give it a -- willing to l
14 give'it a shot, since that seems to be one way to help form a 15 position.
i i
16 Let's see, I was looking this way before.
l 17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I haven't been able to I
18 perceive that the S-3 table in its present form has ever had i
19 nuch of an inpact on a licensing case.
I don't know whether 20 it should or not.
It goes into the mix and an end result comes l 21 out that never seems to depend much on the S-3 numbers.
- Now, 22 to the extent that -- and I don't see anything in the adoption 23 of these numbers that's going to change that one way or the 24 other.
.FwwW Reorun, lnc.
25 I would have been more inclined, therefore, since i
i a
mte 14 73 e
1 it doesn't seen to me that the adoption of these nunbers is a 2
very important step in itself, to defer that until we have the 3
narrative to go with it.
On the other hand, it seems to me l
4 there's a potential for an almost endless deadlock over that I
5 sort of thing.
i 6
I don't mean endless proceeding; I mean endless 7
deadlock here at the table in getting things started on any of g
the various tracks,
And you seem to have three votes in that 9
direction, as lon3.
the understanding is that they work on i
10 1 the narrative, which seens to be, if anything about the S-3 l
l 11 table is very important, it may turn out to be the narrative 12 and what we learn from the considerations that go into it.
I'd
{
13 rather get that started.
I 14 COMHISSIONER KENNEDY:
Again, let me --
l 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So, all things considered, if it's i
16 in the latter, you would be inclined to go with this position? l l
17 COf2iISSIONER KEMUEDY:
I would just point out, Peter, i
18 daat your thinking here is exactly as eine is, daat the narra-1 19 tive is going to be certainly as important as the numbers and 20 maybe moreso in the last analysis.
And my concern simply runs 21 to the fact that that is going to be equally true with the l
i 22 update and moreso, because the update rule is going to be a 23 good deal more important than this one.
l 24 COMIiISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don ' t mean to say j us t the Feeral Reporars, lm.
25 narrative.
l I
I
te 15 74 1
COIDiISSIONER KENNEDY:
We are delaying that.
2 COM!iISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm not sure a narrative is 3
the way to say sort of the whole kit and kaboodle of dose l
4 effects and time limitation, but anyway, that package.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
My problem is, although I am i
6 prepared, 3 cst as you are, so that we can get on with something, 7
to go on this way, I still want to reiterate that that's in 8
the cost of delaying what is the more important issue.
l i
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Vic?
l 10 COMiISSIONER GILIUSKY:
Well, it seems to me that the advantage of not ado'pting these numbers -- it's just a 11 i
12 matter of the label here, really, because the numbers - are
{-
13 almost the same and it's not going to af fec t things a great l
14 deal one way or the other.
It was precisely, I think, just as I i
15 a matter of -- you know the way the sys tem works, that you l
16 would get the narrative more quickly than you would otherwise, f 17 If you are going to adopt the numbers, then I'm inclined to 18 think that you really want the across-the-board complete 1
19 numbers as fast as possible, because you know, then, the notion ;
i 20 of just fixing up one little piece of it with the narrative is :
l' 21 less attractive.
And you really ought to get the whole table j
i 22 fixed up, which I gather -- at least what I understand Dick 23 to be saying.
i 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That 's exactly what I'm saying.
co Feoeral Reporters, Inc. g 25 COM:1ISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is your point, John, in !
l
te '16 75 1
sort of going along with putting these nadaers in?
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess what led me to the 3
conclusion is, first, the numbers really aren't Snat different, I
<~.
g 4
and, as Peter pointed out, as far as i can tell and from what 5
I have heard and tried to find out, they aren 't that signifi-6 cant in evaluation of them anyway.
So I don't have that much 7
Problen with that, with going along with the numbers.
8 Secondly, the people who had spent so much time 9
reviewing it for us had concluded those were sound numbers to i
10 1 use at the present time, given the anrrent state of the know-i 11 ledge,.but that it was necessary to have the narrative.
That 12 seemed to be a real weakness.
{'
13 Now, finally, I think that the development of this 14 all-encompassing, all-Eweeping S-3 rule is going to be an I
i I
15 enormous undertaking.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You mean the update, the fuel i
l 17 cycle environmental effects?
i 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARDE:
The whole thing, that 's right.
I 19 And I envision it could very well either wrap up a vastly l
20 greater number of people than are currently envisioned or take j 21 substantially more time than is envisioned.
So I could well 22 see no narrative ever being addressed at all f or years.
~
23 COlitiISSIONER GILINSKY:
Right.
But I think --
i I
i 24 CHAIRMAN HEMDRIE:
Adopt it as a rule and accept a a Fewal Reporten, lnc.
25 generic s tatement.
l i
i 6
'mte 17 76 1
COMMISSIONER GILIUSKY:
I think what may well turn 2
out is precisely the future that the Chairman sketched out
~
I 3l there for us, and I think this is going to get a little bit 4
into the larger problem and will go on forever.
You see, once i
1 5
you adopt the numbers, you relieve the pressure to hold onto i
6 at least a piece of that.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARHE:
I an going to -- without your 8
years of skepticism, I an going to try to at least initially l
9 conclude the staff will still --
i 10 CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
Will endeavor diligently to carry i
11 cut the directions of the Commission.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
(
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I didn ' t mean that in the 14 terms of any recalcitrance.
This is just the way of the 15 world.
l 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
On the other hand, if you don 'u l
17 adopt the number table, the numbers in the table, then I guess I
18 there are sort of two other things one can do.
One could I
19 either extend the interim rule, which just says that the 20 present table with numbers in it just keeps rolling along, or 21 one could just shrug and throw the whole thing into litigation 22 in every case, in which case I assume the staff will use the 1
23 naterials compiled in this proceeding as background for their 24 testimony to support the pieces.
But it would be litigable in co-Federal Reoorters, Inc.
25 each proceeding, and the same with the other numbers in the l
l
mte 18..
77 I
table.
2 And I don' t know that in either case you have got 3
much of a pressure to get on.
l 4
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think you do.
I would I
i 5
extend the interin rule, I think, but for the very reason that j t
6 it makes us uncomfortable to have this thing going on for so
~
7 long, and why, one is to say let's at least close at this part 8
of it and get the numbers into the S-3 table.
I think that's 9
the very reasonable end of getting a narrative 1 tore quickly l
10 I than we would otherwise, because it does nake everybody uncom-l I
11 fortable.
It makes me upcomfortable to have this thing go on l 1
12 for so long, and I think it's going to make Dick uncomfortable,
([a-6 13 it's going to make you uncomfortable.
14 l
15 l
1 16 l
17 18 i
19 i
{
20 21 22 23 24 l
. Federal Recorters, Inc.
25 l
l i
CR 2759 ELT7ER t7 78 j
jl-1 1
MR. EILPERIN :
It's going to make Judge Bazelon i
2 uncomfortable.
i 3'
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Which is more important.
I i
4 would like to get your impression of his view of a conclusion i
i 5
reached at this table that we would just forego everything that 6
has been done and continue the interim rule i
l 7
MR. EILPERIN:
I made my comment just somewhat g
facetiously.
I think if the Commission's judgment is that the I
9' numbers are so close that there is no real difference between 10 them, and the Commission sees on the horizon large changes in 11 '
the structure of the rule, that that would be sufficient justi 12 fication for extending the interim rule.
i
(
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What we have done is more or 14,
less choose to call this an interim final rule, instead of the l
15 l final interim rule.
l 16,
(Laughter.)
3 Il 17 ll COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'll have to think awhile before I 19 l know whether to vote for that or not.
20 j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And there are, I think, some l
21 serious issues as to some of the numbers, the technetium 22 } issue for one that are involved in this.
And I guess I would 4
23 h be inclined to spend more time sharpening pencils over those
!I 24 ! if it weren't for the fact that whether it's called final Federat Reoorters. Inc. ';'
25 ;
interim or interim final.-- in any case, temporary.
i
'l d
il.2 79 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
l 2
l Vic, if I can try to characterize position, I guess j
I i
3' it would be that you would extend the interim rule, suspend I
adoption of the table here until the narrative is prepared and 4
5 the notice and comment goes through, and whet is prepared to 6l take tabls plus narrative; would that be a fair characteriza-I tion?
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
Well, having characterized it 9
to -
fairly --
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I can now deal with it.
12 (Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I just say I continue to hold thet!
c' 13 k
14 I will go back and join -- join with John in the proposition that he has outlined 15 16 Dick.
I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I simply reiterate, yes, only 17 18 in the interest of reaching a conclusion here that will get us 1
19 l underway with something, but recognizing, somewhat to my l
20 i dismay, that in doing so it's going to delay the more important i
21 issue, which is the longer term update of the whole rule.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think we recognize --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
On the other hand, one can 23 l 24 hope that in the process of drafting the narrative for this Feceral Reporters. Inc.1 piece, the Staff will learn so much from its diligent efforts 25 ;
i
'l fl i!
jl 3 80 l
1 that that will make it easier for it later to draft the narra-2 ! tive that will go with the update rule, just by practice.
i I
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It may give it some early leads in 4l the litigation directions.
l S'
Peter, will you stay with the --
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
My position is if Victor's 7
proposition were the one before us, I would vote yes on it.
I I
B auess what I really said though was that I wouldn't -- having 9
lost on that -- stage a filibuster to prevent the enaction of 10 the other one.
11 As I indicated, I would have preferred to just 12 continue the interim rule, but that it seemed to me to be more 13 important to move on the narrative thing than to continue any i
14 kind of stalemate over that question.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
16 ;;
It seems to me then that we have, from this over here, Y
17 l' on this side of the table, a suf ficient weight to ask the 18 counsel's office to prepare us an order in the S-3 proceeding 19 j and the statement of considerations, which will cover the points l
20 l that we have sketched here, namely that the Commission accepts 1
,as a final rule, in the sense that Commissioner Bradford has 21 l
22 noted, a final rule on the table, a proposed by the Board, that l
23 the Staff is directed to prepare an explanatory narrative along 24 the lines recommended by the Board, and suitable for publication g
e Federal Reporters, Inc. j 25 for comment in a -- I don't know quite whether to us the word
il 4 81 g
1
" separate" or " auxiliary," or "further" or " extension," or 2
whatever --
'I l
34 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The Board used " supplemental."
-s k
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: -- supplemental proceeding, which Il Si believe we are contemplating on a notice and comment basis, 6,
with the intent to try to be able to adopt a generic narrative I
7 as a result of that supplementary proceeding; that in the mean I
i 8-time the Staff, in its use of the S-3 table, in environmental l
9 impact statements, will be expected to provide a suitable l
10 explanatory narrative -- again, along the lines sketched by the 11 !
Board; and that the issues in that narrative will, pending 12 adoption of the generic statement as a rule, be litigatable in I
i
(
13 each case.
14 Let's see, what else do we need to make sure is ll included in the order language or the statement of consideration 15 l 16 l,language?
i 17.
Oh, I think the statement of consideration should 18 take note of the intention for the general update, should take l
19 l note of the Board's comments on the update, where they have l
20 !
offered some advice to the Staff; and I would think we would l
21 want to express the view that the Staff should take those 22 l comments very seriously in oreparing its update.
23ll COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But not necessarily a direc-24 }\\
tion to them, because it's not obvious, for example, to me that
-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 ; a hundred years is the right time.
'l I
I i
!l
, il 5 82 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Oh, I think that's right.
This is simply a comment that the Commission desires the Staff to take l
2 i
\\
3-appropriate account of the Board's recommendations in its
/-
l 4
preparation of the update rule.
l 5!
I don't want to mandate any of that stuff, and the 6-Board didn't intend to mandate it either, I'm sure.
i 7
MR. EILPERIN:
In fact, the Board didn't even settle 8
on a hundred years.
They said a hundred years and a long-term I
9 dose commitment.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
11 I think, in particular, I don't regard the Board's 12 mention of that -- cf the century, as setting -- as being very
(
13 strong guidance for the Staff in setting an increase.
i 14 Other things?
l 15 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, are you indicating what 16 I will be in this narrative?
b 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In the narrative, I am characteriz-I 18 ing it by saying an explanatory narrative along the lines laid 19 l out by the Board, because in their discussion, they point out l
20 i that there is an environmental standard review plan statement i
21 that comes fairly close -- and some comments about it.
22 l COMNESSIONER AHEARNE:
Hell, they are fairly explicit 23 about what they want in the narrative.
ll 24 ':i COMMISSIONER KENENDY:
It ought to say something about Feceral Reponers, Inc.
25 what is not in the rule, too, s
il
ji 6 8 's I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do they mention this integra-l 1
2 i tion time issue?
3 MR. EILPERIN:
That would be one of the items s,~
4l mentioned in the narrative, one of the subjects to be covered.
I 5I OHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That and whatever you can say 6
about health effects.
7 MS. CUNNINGHAM:
I don't think it mentions things 8
like technetium.
9 MR. EILPERIN:
That would be part of the general 10 update, as I understand.
II CHAIRMAN HENDREI:
Yes.
12 In adopting the table, we are adopting the position
(
13 of the Board that the conservatism in,the I-129 release is I4 sufficient cover for the technetium, at least in the context of '
I 15 l this table, at its p: oposed use.
16 lll MR. EILPERIN:
I would like to get clear on that.
I i
17 fthought at one point eal.ier on there was some feeling that the 18 auestion of technetium value should be an open iss'ue that I9 !
could be litigated in an individual proceeding.
I 20 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That certainly is my view.
2I MR. EILPERIN:
I think that would be, in my view, 22 preferable and more conservative way to go about it.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
I il 24 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see, what did the Board
-Faceral Recorters, Inc. '
25 recommend?
'i I I e
31.7 84 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think the Board came to the 2
conclusion that the conservative --
{
3 COMMISIONER KENNEDY:
That the I-129 provide the 4
appropriate coverage, necessary coverage.
^
5 MR. EILPERIN:
Yes, on that I would differ with the 6
t 7'
MR. MIRAGLIA:
And the Board recommended, in the i
8 update, that the examination of technetium be done.
i 9
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, I think the Board's position L
10 was that you ought to deal with it specifically and include it 11 l when the update came along, but for the purposes of present 12 table, the record adquately supported the review, that the i
13 conservatism in one place sufficiently covered, not considering
{
14 the technetium.
15 MR. EILPERIN:
But there's a cuestion, when someone 16 ; wants to raise technetium in an individual proceeding, does the 17 ll Commission want to say, " Fine, let there be evidence on that,"
18 l or does the Commission want to say, "No, you can't do tnat"?
19 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'm about to ask for a division of i
20I the house on the point.
I'm going to recommend to you that we 1
21 accept the finding of the Board, that the technetium is 22 considered,for the purpose of this table, covered adequately 23 by the I-129.
2t But I think we could make a specific decision on that w.pfewei neoonm inc. !
25,
and either decide to go with the Board or to make that an b
9 d
N l
85 ji 8 1
exception, where we would differ from the Board's findings.
2 l:
So, I don't know.
Let me put the question this way:
3<
Those who are in favor of the Board's findings --
,~
\\
l 4!
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In the technetium matter?
l 5
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
I am.
t 6
Those who would prefer to allow it to be litigated 7
in individual cases?
8 (Four hands raised, of Commissioners Gilinsky, i
9 Bradford, Kennedy, and Ahearne.)
10 CHAIRMAN HEEDRIE:
Then it's litigatable.
11 Let me point out to you that you have just made -- I 12 trust your grounds are adequate, but you have had a proceeding
({
13 going on out here for a couple of years with a very substantial' 14 record in hand, and the Board summarized it.
15 Fair enought.
Okay, so that one is specifically 16 ;1
!j accepted.
I 17 I What other things should we cover?
18 Peter, you were signaling?
19 1 COMMISIONER BRADFORD:
No.
I had been about to raise 1
20 i that same cencern.
l 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Technitium?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
I want to take a look i
22l l
23 h' at it, but for the moment, I assume that was the only one.
I d
24 h COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are you laying out any sort
-Focersa Reporters. Inc.,
25 of schedule here?
q ll 0
1
86
$19 '
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
For the narrative, going forward 2
with the narrative?
3'.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
i
-s 1
4' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The Staff said it could draft i
5 it in two months -- my recollection.
Isn't that what it said?
6, Isn't that what the record of the last meeting would suggest?
l l
7 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The record of the last meeting?
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
My impression, thatIwasleftf 9
with, was that if called upon to draft it, it could be drafted I
10 '
in a couple of months, but that it would take several more 11 months for the comment -- for the notice of comment proceeding 12 and the consideration of comments, and then redrafting.
(
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, we sharpened our pencil on i
14 that, and we look at about 30 man-months?
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It says in here, in August.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Ready to go out for comment?
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
To the Commission, in August 18
-- ready to go out.
19-1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIL:
Well, recommended to the Commission i
I 20 i for publication?
i 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In August?
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Which means it won't get out 24 'l i
until September.
g Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 l, COMMISSIONER ABCARNE:
Or am I misreading that?
!a i
i i
j,1 10, 87 l
1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Do we have a 60-day comment 2
period normally?
ThtF' November.
I I
2 i COMMISS_"ONER T 2ARNE :
Or is that the earliest, your i
I
.pletion of the drafting and comment?
l 4'
estimate for the c Si That's right, that's seven months; so maybe I misread 6;
that.
l 7
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
In my discussions, when Staff put a
this together, they were talking about August to get it up here.;
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why does it take so long?
10 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
To write it?
11 COMMISSIONER GILINiiKY:
Well, when we had a situation 12 that was regarded as posing a problem for reactor licensing, we-(}
13 did the whole report in six weeks?
14 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Close to 10, sir.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
10 weeks.
16 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
If you recall, we had all the l1 17 I resources that were in DOE and NRC, the National Laboratories, I
18 : to draw on; and here we've got about six people.
l 19 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But you're going back to 20! contract, aren't you?
l 21 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
There is --
22l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Wait a minute.
You had I
23 specifically down here -- said the contract will increase, and
- I 24 ', you had said that that will slip when the contractor comes in, Fecerst Reporters. Inc. ]
25 ; so that must mean you're going to contractor.
1
'i 4
l!
88 jl 11 l
1 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We will go to the contractor for l
l 2 ! part of it, but part of it has to be done in-house.
hl 3j To answer Commissioner Gilinsky's question, there are l
I 4
things that you want in here that are going to take some time, 5'
that are beyond our control.-- one of the main things being the 6
health effects in the BEIR Report.
i I
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You mean we're waiting for i
the report?
9 9
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, we could go with health effects.
10 now.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm just trying to understand 12 what you are saying.
(
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
If the BEIR Report comes out, then 14 there is an obligation to review the BEIR Report and let that l
15 - work its way through a process before we adopt it and the health.
16 effects.
A 171 But with the presence of a BEIR Report out, we can't l
18 luse other criteria, other factors, for health effects; so we are I
19 1 almost forced to --
l 20 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
When is the report supposed to i
21 come out?
22 l MR. CUNNINGHAM:
What's the latest -- next week?
23 l MR. MIRAGLIA:
February.
24 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
February.
It keeps getting delayed.
Foceral Reporters, Inc.. j 25 : It's just on the verge of coming out.
i
89 1 12 l
1 MR. EILPERIN:
We can always have as part of the 2 l narrative that the Commission shall use the risk coefficient in 3
most current BEIR Report, unless the Staff expresses disagree-I
\\-
I ment with that report.
4 5
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
But we don't know what's in the 1
6 report.
7 MR. EILPERIN:
That's not a very generic rulemaking.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But this has the markings of 9
really something that is going to go on forever.
10,
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I don't know, because I don' t know 11 what's in the BEIR report.
I haven't been able to talk to any-12 body that does.
I don't know whether it's going to be of an
(
13 insignificant impact or significant impact.
We don't know.
14
_There probably will be a hearing on it -- when, I am 15 lnot sure.
I
' hkup 16 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That sounds like you're going i
17 to have to do the narrative as though P isn't coming out; and 18 if it comes out, then you may have to jus maybe' hold off 19 l developing,the narrative.
20 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Oh, it's the end point that bothers 21 you.
You can do all this work and develop the narrative, absent.
22 ; the numbers that you would plug into it.
But, nevertheless, if i
i 23 l the BEIR Report comes out within the next couple of months, we 24 lj can't ignore that BEIR Report-in presenting to the Commission Joceral Reporters, Inc. '
25 j some proposal.
i i
O i
$1 13 90 g
1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask you, how long is l
l 2 ~ this narrative going to be, do you think?
d 2,
MR. MIRAGLIA:
The current stan9.ard review plan is i
4' on the order of eight to nine pages, and that doesn't discuss S'i about seven or eight topics which are going to have to take, i
6 l you know, one or two pages perhaps.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So you've 21 pages?
8 MR. MIRAGLIA:
I would guess that's a ballpark --
l 9
probably on the order of 25, 30 pages.
10 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I don't think it's the size of.the 11 document.
You'll see tomorrow we'll come up with a document 12 l about that thick that took a relatively short time to prepare.
~
(
13 It is these issues, like how far out you go in considering 14,
dose commitment, that get cebated extensively within Staff and l
15 '
a lot of places, even before it gets up to the Commission.
And 16j; then it's debated further here.
li 17 f It's those kinds of things --
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Can't we make sort of a i
l 19l requirement that in three months you come in with a draft, as
!{
20 F best as vou can?
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I like that idea.
22l MR. MIRAGLIA:
The answer is yes sir.
i e
1 0
23 j
(Laughter.)
l 24 ll MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We will come up with a draft, as co Federal Reporters, Inc. l 25 {
best we can.
t
'l ll
jl 14 91 I
1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, take this issue of how 2 : long you integrate over -- whether you use some cutoff on dose.!
4 3
Ultimately the Commissioners are going to have to sit here and l
I 4'
chew over it.
It doesn't seem to me that it takes all that l
\\
l i5' long to lay out some of the possible ways to go, and just put 6; that in front of the Commissioners and let them see if --
I 7
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
B;;eak their heads instead of l
8l the Staff.
l l
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
-- see if they can decide it.
10 MR. MIRAGLIA:
Well, sir, now you're talking of some-11 l thing that goes a little bit beyond the narrative.
If we are 12 asked to propose the Staff narrative, the Staff would go forward
('
13 I with its current things right now.
14 l And what you are suggesting is the narrative should l
N 15 '
also have alternatives to their thinking.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, I don't -- at least -- if 17 h you said vou would go forward with the Staff narrative, that l
I 18 sounds as though you could do it in a week.'
l 19 l MR. MIRAGLIA:
We could do the -- give you the 1
20 !
standard review plan, which is already attached.
i 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I have a copy.
22 l MR. MIRAGLIA:
We have to go beyond that.
We have to, I
23 ; go beyond that, and I think what we have to do is just to make 1
h I
24 'l sure that there is adeauate documentation and that the record
-Feceral Reporters, Inc. '
25 j is properly cited.
I'
!l 1,
1
jl 15 92 i
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seems to me that if you want to 2 I adopt, in the order or the statement, whatever is appropriate 3'
-- order or statement or considerations, a requested" time for 1
I 4'
the Staff to come back sith a proposed narrative to the S
Commission, we could do that.
6-And I guess, if you want to have a chance to do it 7
on a certain time scale that has been discussed here, then I 8
think something like three months from the publication of the 9
order is about right; and I would put it that way, ask the 10 Staff to come back with a proposed explanatory narrative to be 11 published for comment.
12' (4: QS p.m. -- Commissioner Kennedy left.)
I
(
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And what that means is they may 14 or may not be able to come to the Commission with a sort of I
15 fully developed options paper.
16 On the other hand, as you point out, no matter how
.I 17 '
fully developed an options paper that might come with, we're 18 going to sit here and argue at some length, and I think that's 19 l right.
I 20 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Right.
I 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'd feel cheated if we didn't do 22 that.
23 (Laughter.)
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Exactly.
3 Federal Reporters, Inc. '
25 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And it may be that, you know, if i
i N
l
jl 16 -
93 l
I the stuff comes in, we can mull it over in a meeting or two l
2 ll and then see more particularly where we would like some more i
d 3'
supporting work done by the Staff, rather than them trying to 4l anticipate all possible questions in a great and comprehensive 5:
r,per.
6 Why, never.,ind that -- get a proposed narrative in I
7 in 90 days, and we will start poking and asking questions, and }
8 then see what kind of support -- and it may turn out that it 9
will take quite awhile from there, or it may not; I don't know, 10 but that seems, to me, is a possible way to go about it.
11 Now, I guess you could respond to that kind of a 12 directive.
('
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We will give vou what we can.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What you do is do your best.
l 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Even if the BEIR Report comes I
16 out the day before.
I 17 !
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's right.
You may have to l
I 18 send it up, Dick, and say, "Look, we were writing in a certain 19 l direction here, and the BEIR Report now came out, two or three 1
20 i weeks aco.
It looks like it's going in a different direction.
I l
21 '
We are going to have to refurbish that.
Nevertheless, here is 22 q thrust of the effort, as it was; and let's talk about it. "
e7 I think we've recognized uncertainties in the timing s8 23 i i
- \\
24 h here.
-Federal Reporters, Inc.,
25 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
On the BEIR Report, I don't picture ll
$1 17 94 1
it coming out and making a large difference in the work that l
l 2 I we have to do or redo.
It's just the end point; your target i
l' 3 J date is somewhat hinged to that.
l V
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
But suppose they hit a snag about mid-May, th'y go back to the academy and say -- or to EPA, and 5;
e i
6lsay, "We're going to take another year.
It was just decided --
I 7
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We can't depend on the BEIR Report.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So it is there coming -- okay, do 9
you want to hook something like a "three months from date of 10 order" --
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- on the direction, as I have 13 said, to propose to the Commission an explanatory narrative to i
14 l be published for public comment as a generic statement in the 15 environmental -- if you use that language, why then we're not 16, talking about -- then the amount of supporting and background i
17 ] work that comes with it is sort of what you can do.
18 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We will dc what we can.
~
i 19 !
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
20 i Other items to go in the proposition?
I 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Not in the order, but I would 22 l appreciate having a copy of -- I imagine you will have to send i
f 23 j some sort of instruction to your contractor, giving some change,'
24 h at least for the immediate future; and I would appreciate a
@-Feceral Reporters, Inc. '
25 copy of that.
s N
jl 18 95 1
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Yes.
We will have to assess just 2 f what changes are in the contractor.
d i
3 I think, particularly with this three months, to the l
i 4
extent we don't have to disturb the contractor, we would like I
I 5;
to do it in Staff.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I understand that, but start-7 ing from scratch, on voting to go ahead with the current 8
numbers, it's all predicated upon your point that you are going 9
to have this revision done with the same level of care, and 10 this narrative is being developed with the same level of care 11 as you would have if the interim number wasn't adopted 12 immediately, t
13 That was predicated upon your charge, which indicates i
14 you are going to have to have your contractor doing some of
.15 that work, because that is, at this stage, a very knowledgeable 16 l group of people.
I!
17 ll So I am interested in seeing that revised direction.
l 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is sort of apart from order 19 l and statement of consideration language.
I 20 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Just comments.
I 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'm looking for other directions.
MR. EILPERIN:
I think we certainly have enough to 22l i
l start work on this statement of considerations to submit to 23 q
24 l the Commission.
..., n-,... i <;
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And an order.
s h
n
ji-2C 96
/
1 MR. EILPERIN :
An order, yes.
l 2
l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And we will look at the language i
2-and comment on it, and hopefully vote on it expeditiously.
I s.
4 Okay?
i 5!
MR. EILPERIN:
All right.
6, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Very good.
I 7
I think the Commission deserves about a minute and i
8 a half.
l 3
nd t8 9;
(Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m.,
the hearing was adjourned.)
l l
10 11 I
12
- ~
13
\\.*
j 14 i
15 16 I 17 l i
18 ;
l 19 i I
.I 20 i l
21 22l I
23 l
24 !
Federal Reoorters, Inc. f 6 25 l
~~
l:
EN3 i
a