ML19308C093

Transcript of 790327 Interview W/R Loewenstein for NRC Oral History Program

ML19308C093
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	03/27/1979
From:	Mazuzan G NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:
Shared Package
ML19308C087	List: ML19308C086 ML19308C089 ML19308C091 ML19308C093
References
TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001210392
Download: ML19308C093 (35)

Text

hwm-s i=:.%-

s f:.

3

... t March 27, 1979

'="

Offim of Robert Imenstein f~"[

NME DR. MAZUZAN:

I'd like to start by having you give ne a biographical

=

sketch of yourself.

Er p...........

5..

MR. ICHENSTEIN: I'll be glad to, George. I gmss your history is yj starting in 1954 and in 1954, I was a young lawyer in the General Counsel's Office of the AT.

I had just been assigned to working with

}....-..

Harold Pri I was very pleased at the assignment; I had loped to get it; and I did. And I gmss Harold and I kure the first tw people to I

be designated to develop the Canmission's ncw regulatory program. I think ther plJ:M two lawyers because I'm not sure anybody else under-7 stood what a regulatory program neant - or that it would have any

~ ~ "

sign.ificance or inportance.

But in any event, I stayed at the AT

~~

until 1965. The last - well, fran 1961 to 1964, I was Director of the Division of Licensing and Regulation.

In 1964, we broke up the

=

division and several other divisions with several conponents, each of

=

which becane a division. And than I was designated Assistant Director of Regulations, stayed there for a year, left in the sumer of 1965 to teach. I didn't enjoy teaching that year and very rapidly decided 2

to open up a law office. Which I did in November 1965. My firm has gtwn fran a one man law office to 17 or 18 lawyers now, specidlizing, not entirely intentionally, but by reason of the backgrounds of myself and neny of my partners who are nestly of the nuclear type.

DR. MAZUZAN: You're from New York City?

[.... _

f_....=..

4

• • -88'S t=. :. *..

3 8b.o 8001210 T ' ~==-

.="

~;;"":"

'::=;T

' ' ' ' " " =

=

_ 3;;;_,3.--- -- -

s

=a.2_.._

g' "1.6.4 L 1;;.

t

!C.2-y=..:

MR. IIXHSTEIN:

I am from New York City. I graduated from college

.=_.

with the City of New York; now part of CUNY? CUNY?

h DR. MAZUZAN: CUNY.

i MR. IIXESI'EIN: CUNY. 'That's soon to be part of SUNY, I think.

21 DR. VAZUZAN: Okay. It was then CCNY.

i..

MR. IGHSTEIN: Right. I graduated from there in 1939, went to (bluTbia Law School from 1939 to 1942 where I was decisions editor of

= = = "

the law review. Joined, not voluntarily, but as a result of the draft, m=

the army, in August of 1942. Was discharged in the spring of 1946, March to be exact, and then worked for a law finn in New York for about

=""

four years.

I cane to Washington in June of 1951 and joined the legal

= =..

staff of the Office of Price Stabilization. That was during the Korean War.

It becane very obvious to ne then that price control won't work.

' ' ~~

Certainly not in peacetine, -and I started to look about for another job that I thought could be nore effective, nore satisfying and nore

=

long term than that. I ran into a fellow by the nane of E&rard Haus?

Who was then General Counsel at the ABC.

DR. MAZUZAN: How large was the staff in the General Counsel's office when you joined?

~

MR. IDWENSTEIN: I had an inpression there were about 12 or 13 lawyers when I joined.

I thought it was the best law office in

=2..-

Washington and if 3'; wasn't the best it would certainly rank with the

.._m best.

First class lawyers.

'= L....

.ZM DR. bAZUZAN: Now when you joined them, their headquarters was d?wn on Constitution Avenue.

{;

T

'::R..

T.*..

'C...

i

. = =

=

=

=

- = = =.

~ -

s i=::

p.=w=.

i;.._.

a...

$2r-

_3_

r-

[*-"r-'***

=..=i MR. IGESTEIN: The headquarters was on Constitution. Avenue between 18th and 19th Street in what subsegmntly becann the Public Ihalth Service Building.

I',m not sure who has it now, National Science Ebundation I think, had it for a time.

DR. MAZUZAN: How long did you stay there? Was it until they

~

built the Gernuntrwn building?

MR. IGENSI'EIN: We stayed there until we noved into the Germantown building.

e.

DR. MAZUZAN: You were never located at H Street?

e = =.

MR. I4WENSTEIN: I was new.r located at the H Street operation.

"===

My office was always on Constitution Avenue. There was - altlough the relationships were good - tMre was always a certain degree of tension bet e the people in the General Counsel's office and tlose r

who, although they were lawyers and good friends, had left the General

=-

Counsel's office. We had the notion that we could preserve our pro-tu =.= u fessional legal independence better by staying on Cbnstitution Avenue.

Although Harold Pri asked neny tines if I would go over there, we -

never did. I cbn't think - it seeved like a very inportant question

, = ===

at the time, I'm sure it wasn't.

DR. MAZUZAN: But there was that conflict that at least was there

~

ZE-bebeen the pronational side of things and the -

~"

MR. IMENSTEIN: It was nore.of a. tension ~than a conflict.

DR. MAZUZAN: Right.

• =

g"... "

g.=:.=.

r...

1

~.

u

• .;.:'L u...

e E~

-=%-=---"

~

N C-

._ <=-== r.====._. ' - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - -

[i a

t-

.:.::.4.

~

.=..

m.

.m.

.=.=.:.

MR. IIMENSTEIN: It was an uneasiness on the part of lawyers. I 1; -. ~..

......m think you probably understand that lawyers in an engineering or whatever kind of organization which is non-legal always feel a little bit insecure.

They're afraid they won't be consulted; tiny're afraid their professional ind2pendence will be inpeached and, of course, the younger you are, the less experienced you are, the nore inpcu.i.Euit this seems. And.it seened inportant to all of us at the tine.

DR. VAZUZAN:

It was when you were in the Ceneral Counsel's Office that you net Harold Price?

MR. IDHENSTEIN: Harold Price was a Deputy General Counsel. I started to work there. Nhen I first interviewed for the job - and that

=

nust have been in the fall or winter of 1951 to 52, the General Counsel was Everett Hollis. There were, if I hs+>>: r correctly, tse deputies.

One was Ibger Harris, who incidentally I'm having lunch with on Friday, and _the other was Harold Pric.e._ __Ibger, Harris left before I started to work.

I'd started to work.at the..AIC in June of 1952. Ibger Harris

.Z

.. =..

.left and was succeeded 17f Max Eisenburg. So if my recollection is 7-correct, Max was. Deputy _ General. Counsel when I started to work, but T

not when I was hired., If he wasn't Deputy General Counsel when I started, he becane that soon after I started.

It would have been

' ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~

smetine in the sumer of 1952.

= =

DR. baZUZAN: It was in 54 when Harold was appointed as the head

~~~~~

of a task force to develop the regulatory business.

MR. LOWENSTEIN: Right.

- ~~~

+=:===

.k~

r--

TM M :"::::==

c- _

g

-if3332.

.===.;

K:.' - - < -

:3

==:: o.

DR. bMZUZAN: 'Ihat is den he brought you along?

y g...

MR. IDENSTEIN: He brought ne along to be his lawyer. Essent-in11y,

- = -

the lawyer of the task form.

".L _.

DR. MAZUZAN: I'm very interested in that whole - trying to get that - that organization developed. Do you recall the specific things

_ ~ ~ ~

-w.

= =.

that you worked on? I know that you were involved in the regulations.

Z How about the organization itself?

~

MR. IDENSTEIN: The early part of the organization itself I was not nuch involved in, although I'm sure Harold and I talked alout it -

what it would look like, how it should be organized. You've obviously

-~"

become familiar with the fact that it ultimately became, not very long

~

after, the Division of Civilian Application and that had both prtuotional 3+,--

and regulatory responnibilities. It was the division with responsibility

- " ~ ~

both to current industry to nove into this new field of pmmful usage and it also had the job of regulating.

=.[

DR. NAZUZAN: When that - the way that, at least from my reading of the record, was that in the fall of 54, Price was appointed to set up this new organization which over the course of May 54, early 55, he did.

It was announced by AT in the spring of 1955. At the same Z~ ~.1 tine.several sets of regulations - several parts of the regulations -

came out - the preliminary ones - those were the ones that you worked

~

... -. =.

on, am I correct?..

j

~-

MR. IDENSTEIN: Yes.

T DR. FAZUZAN: Did you work on those alone or did you have oon-sultation with other people? What sort of precedents did you use?

.+..:..

A'U: :.

b.. ':.

..**.. 7.*J,12"'

S' J':: _ * ;;

1=2"=L=--.-_**:::=""'=="'"*""""

y

L.. _...

~

T::.......

. :=..

w

..:~a.'..

.:::.. "?

MR. I4XE2GrEIN: Well, there wasn't much in the way of precedents.

I had just cone from OPS where I had been working on OPS regulations, so I had a whole bound black book of.. OPS regulations and som of those provided sone of the forms that I used.. There was one other lawyer who had recently a:xte from the Justice Departnent, whose name I block out - it'll come to ne in just a minute - but I can walk down the

-- 1..

hall'and ask somebody. He had cme in frce the Justice Departnent I

really with the mission of cbing the legal work for Harold Price's

_ f-task force. Something happened between him and Harold.

(Goes off the record)

This lawyer, whcm I nentioned, whose name I'm blocking for the mxtent and shouldn't be - he worked on the original drafts of Part 2 and Part 50. And he and I worked together on the final draft

==- )

m -

of Part 2 and Part 50. It seems to me we had help also frca Jim bbrrison who was a lawyer in tSe office at that time. Probably fran

]

..... \\

one or the other or both of Bill Berman and lee Hydeman. Do these nanes appear back at that period?

~

f DR. bRZUZAN:. That's right.

MR. IfKENSTEIN:

I'm sure lidt of them worked with ne or independent i.Z....,

of ne on scue of those regulations.

I'm trying to decide at that point whether the office was formally organized as the regulatory group or whether we just called on Ice and Bill for help at the tine.

. DR. FRZUZAN:

It seems to ne that's when the announcement was l.

nac5e that the Division of Regulation was es+-ahlic:hed.

e.O

:.^:::.

i.e.

.a

' " * ~

• t.""-"

i

. - ~..

.-____..u

.._m.

~

~

~~'v

._.2 T'%

~ ~ ' '

m.=_

=. _..

.._..__.e:e

. : :_.a.

\\

.._=

~7-

= = - -

MR. IGHSTEIN: Civilian Application.

_g DR. MAZUZAN: Well then, they changed it to the Division of

=

Civilian Application three nonths later.

MR. IGESTEIN: Okay. Over and out.

i..

DR. MAZUZAN: It was the Division of Licensing, I believe, or scuething like that.

~

~

MR. IGHSIEIN: That I hadn't controlled -

" ~ " "

DR. FRZUZAN: And then three nonths later the division was reorganized and it becanle the Division of Civilian Application - but

~

at that tine - the cnnoun trent also went out that these regulations were being sent out for public ccmrent. They started in March of 55

~ ~ ~

and they went right through the simmer.

I think Part 2 was the last

-.p That was in August that it was announced; so by that tine we

.27 one.

~~

had Part 20, Part 50, Part 70 -

MR. IGOGTEIN: Part 40, Part 30 should have been ocxning along 7

.*..n.,

l very soon after those. Part 100 cane along nonths later, as I luiuiber.

DR. FRZUZAN: Yes, a couple of years later. Now that indicates that sorrebody was working on those during that very, very early period while the organization of the whole regulatory division was being ZZ csi-nh14 ched.

MR. IGGSTEIN: Yes. Well, there becane a public clanor for

~

,..... S... i regulations by the end of 1954, as I lutudur. People were beginning 7

to say "We cbn't know what to do," so the heat was really on and I

.. _...Z think there were 202 hearings.

I don't know whether - right - I

=-

'*'C'h

'L 244.

,.i C M p.

4

..e..

• * " + + '

• :=*L ' '

'^=:=

' * = " '

-~'-'w='

r,*' ';lr~, ~ ;'

............-sm

• t.

y.=-

.e.

.'^

i-iEEi=::

-e-

=?

=....

cone across - but there were 202 hearings that year and the General C

bhnager was chided for rot having regulations ready for industry -

g..

just to be able in file applications for construction permits.

=.... -.

DR. FRZUZAN: 'Ihese are'in the 54 - this would be the first 202

:.=

hearings after the a[ct?

. = - -

MR. IDNENSTEIN: After the act - I'm speaking of the 202 hearings in early 1955 - should have been like February 1955.

DR. baZUZAN: Right.

MR. IfWENSTEIN: And so the heat was on to get these things out and what is the reason for all the delay.

So these initial draft

~

m...

regulations were issued, I guess, as rapidly as possible after that -

you would renenber the date to the day.

]

DR. bnZUZAN: Starting in May and continuing right through the

. =.. =

surmer. Then there was a slack period and then scme nore were issued

((_?.

and, of course, after the public carment period they came back for

= =

revision.

"="

~

MR. IDWENSTEIN: Yes. And in the interim there were also, I'm certain, we must have had industry advisory crnmittee neetings as well

....JJ.~

as getting written ccxments.

DR. MAZUZAN: Right. 'Ihere are references in the testinony of

_ ~~L Harold Price in the 202 hearings in 56 where he's talking abaut the

-i

==.m regulations crxning out and le said that there were extensive neetings with industry representatives.

..w._..

p...

..:.d.';:' L

.::2'i.

\\

.......!M a l

...y I

= = * -

"~'--**-n w,-__.='T*

9 = =r ' ? - -

=c c~

..A.....e 555.k O.=

.'O..".'^;.-

=. =..

.L'h"."...

MR. IONSTEIN: Yes.

s==s-1

.Oi.% C'

...s.

DR. VAZUZAN: What about the Carmissioners themselves? Did they get involved in any of this other than just rubber stanping the regu-lations as they were developed?

=

MR. IGHSTE~

" can't reml1 any particular involvenent by the Conmissioners. Certainly no involvement in the developmnt of the regulations.

ii DR. MAZUZAN: 'Ihey m2 rely approved them? Staff papers were written explaining it to them and then they would -

MR. IGHSTEIN: That's right. There might be some discussion at a Ccumission m2eting. We might get suggestions at the conmission nocting, but I cbn't really rmenber very much of that.

I'm certain

[

there must have been, or would have been on particular details, but m m.J

.+.-

extensive revision there would not have been, and certainly no detailed or extensive review.

Z 2 m.-.

DR. MAZUZAN: I haven't' been out there yet, I've talked with the

' archivist, the DOE archivist, about Comtission meetings regarding these regulations, given him all the dates, and he said he'd search them 77 out for ma and so far he hasn't teen able to find anything.

"MR. IGHSTEIN: Well, the Armal practice would have been for there to be a briefing. Usually by Harold Price. He would nonelly have been accxmpanied by Cliff &ck and/or myself, and in the early F5-N years by Frank Pittman. Frank was, when th3 Division of Civilinr1

""="

=-

Application was set up, Frank was the deputy.

It would have always

= - - -

r:3 2 ':--.'

LL..

{'C

[.

l

^

l'

[-

} 'l nui=.=.=in;2=:-j::

=1-

== =?

"=

==

L...... y

=-

gg.m 55.bb5.'e

~

==

=e.=e

.u;..

J have been Harold and Frank during those years, plus Cliff 'and/or e

myself. And if we're speaking of regulations I would always have been

=""

there and one of us would brief the Catunission about the particular

. -.

rule, very briefly, unless they said they didn't want to hear, that

= " ~ ~ ' " ~

=. = = ~

they had read them or they were familiar with the subject matter, in which matte,., we would skip that. And if there were any particular

_.i.

cpnstions, we would respond to them. Scnntines depending on Iw much

$=--

public attention the rule or the proposed rule had attracted, so would brief them on what the sensitive controversial points were. And we

~

usually tried to cb that. There was also an effort on the staff papers themselves to identify the points of aantroversy. We would also really

==

make a conscientious effort in the staff papers to identify the con-troversial points, hcw they had been resolved, what the main ccxments were from industry, the extent to which we'd nodified the rule, to accept those v uments or to reject them.

DR. FAZUZAN:

In Icading the record, it appears that all the initial rules were - after they wre sent out for public cxxment - were

.===c acwpwd as such with the aception of one part of Part 50 which

.=..m defined what the utilization facilities were and J.wg4 frcxn Part 50 fuel. fabrication plants because it was felt there were enough safeguards

.. - j and enough safety devices that were incorporated in - let's see what part is it that an1s with materils?

~

.=:=a MR. IfMENSTEIN: That's Part 40. Part 40 is source naterials, special nuclear material - that's Part 70.

==

a u"=4..

2. *

._==u

• " ~ Q.L.=. 'G.:.C [

' *:= l

^ ' ~ "

' %%E'

~~

f:;:G:.. '....:.;.

~

~ " ~ ~

"~

...-..w...

:

=:..

_11_

==

DR. IGZUZAN: Part 70 Do you Auiditer that debate?

===-

%,.m 1.,

MR. IMENSTEIN: Well, I luteil.er scate of it.

DR. IGZUZAN: Do you luisiter the debate?

MR IIT.ESTEIN: You said debate, not date. I don't retenter T.'.

the date. I luteiber some of the debate. We were very anxious to avoid sc Te of the red tape, that was already associated with reactor

_Z.~i~

licensing, becrming at6cW to fml fabrication facilities. The require-7 77-ment, for exanple, of operators licensing, which was in the statute, the Atomic Energy Act, from the beginning, for production and utilization

. _,_ ]_

facilities, and it was not discretionary with the Ccmnission. It just didn't seem - to us at that tine to make any sense, as applied to a reprocnssing plant for - I didn't nean to say a reprocessing plant -

-.r a fuel fabrication facility. And it rmily was felt that there was enough in the way of controls and we didn't need to do it.

DR. MAZUZAN:

It appears it nest hate been a mamToth job to turn these things out in the short period of tine that you did it. Do you

.lututi.er the verkload?

.77 MR. IGENSTEIN: I tuiuiber the workload as being massive. In fact I le*,Jer the nutber of secretaries I worked through. In ZT~

retrospect, I'm not sure I imiutter hcw many hours were exerted but 7-7 I'm sure there were many. And until late at night to do it.

E2 DR. MAZUZAN:. There was, in a draft I have of Hewlett's chapter on the 1954 act - this is going back just a bit frts the period we're ZZ talking about - theres a reference in there that AT's General Counsel's

>...e e

m. S m

"~""Cl.'

' ~ ~ " " ~

"" " ' ' " " * * * " ~

u ((i,5-$$_...... ?

==

'-'4a.L.

~

office drew up two bills'for a">nsideration by the joint cmmittee to alloa civilian participation in the nuclear industry which subsequently

~

were sent to the JCAE and they threw them out.

MR. IIXHSTEIN: Threw than out.

-- r--

DR. MAZUZAN: Didn't even look at them, apparently, They looked

~~~"

if at them and decicbd that they just wouldn't cut it, then they rewrote their e bin..

' ~ '

'~

'~

=

MR. IGESTEIN: Right. That's true.

=

DR. MAZUZAN: And a fellow by the narre of George Norris -

MR. IIX6 STEIN: George Norris. Yes.

DR. MAZUZAN: Was he tha son of the famous senator?

MR. IGRENSIEIN: No. As far as I know there was no cannection. If there was such a connecti_n I never heard about it, but if there had

' ~"

been a - I think I would have. heard about it.

. =

The AT bills were not worked on. I didn't work.

....l" on those. And if you would like to talk to the ran who did, he is in trwn practicing law, his name is George Ebx (bleridge(?). He worked on those. Norris really is the author of the Atcrnic Energy Act.

DR. MAZUZAN: The record notes that he used as a guide for the

~~~:..

licensing part of the act the FCC Act of 1934. Alnest took it verbatim.

Is that - did you ever look at - cortpare the two of them?

---x--

MR. IGiENSTEIN: We did (b conparisons. And there can be,no.

question that he used the'comuunications act as a nodel. And you

]l; see it tine after tine particularly in the construction requirerrents

..e.

e.e..

e

'C*.~'.~.:

O

... ~....

.. ~.........

............~

.." " ' * " " ~

• y.. -

m

. M.L ii.

and in the operators limnsing requirments. And there are certain reserved powers - energency powers, and mrtain provisions of the

.. ~.

Atomic Energy Act dealing with administrative procedures that, as I

==[7 rettsber, seem to have been nodeled frcm the Federal Ccrmmications Act.

DR. FRZUZAN: So the record is very accurate?

MR. IDWENSTEIN: 'Ihe record is accurate. And George Norris can -

is still in the Washington area - he works for one of the Senate -

one of the Congressional military affairs cm mittees.

DR. FAZUZAN: Okay, that's good to know too.

MR. IDWENSTEIN: He's available, I would think.

DR. FRZUZAN: Iet's go back up to 1955, 56 nat. Once the regu-1...

lations were out, I'm interested in the Part 2 of the regulations which es+nh14nhed tha due process elenent and - because I've done z;;;;.:

some further research in the Fermi case where these things crrre under question. And I was wondering that in the developent of Part 2 dat sort of guides you used to establish those?

MR. IDWENSTEIN: Well, it was basir ally the administrative pro-mdure act.

j._.

DR. h2ZUZAN: That was in 46, right?

~

~

.MR. IDWENSTEIN: Of 1946. Which was then a relatively new statute at which you know - it spoofed the latest thinking, inwr-j porated the latest thinking as far as we were cancerned, and the latest

=5-.

=

===..a applicable law. We had, I don't usmiber how neny groups we talked

==

to about those procedures. They did attract a great <bal of attention

,=

.. =

I

"".'.**".T*

.4.='.....

i====.

,..; ;;.;..._., _.53;; =. =.... -.. :=: ~ ~ ~ -

(.... _

=:

===.==y 3

==

=. =.

o

. *~'ii:

.. = =

• ^;.;:'.":.":::

frun the bar, at least I thought,so.

We got ocmmnts from Dean Stason,

=,..... _.

who was then Dean of the University of Michigan Law School.' Perhaps he was - he was no longer the full tine Dean, he may have been Dean Emeritus. We had - well., you'd know better than I, I don't mulber what the volute of crxments was, but we had, as I luuder, a great

...;.=

nuny coments from lawyers and law professors as well as practicing g,

DR. FRZUZAN: I know this was brought to the attention of the Joint Ctmnittee and in their hearings there was an extensive citation T.- ~

of sann of the coments that -

MR. IGENSTEIN: Hertz Plaine did the first draft of Part 2.

I cbn't renember what all of the specific isstus were anyncre, but I y-cb know that there were a lot of people who were rather concerned with

. = = =

the first draft that he did, for fear that it was too academic and too inflexible. And we put the first draft of Part 2 through a very ex-tensive revision process. Hertz, I, and others, Harold Price, worked

<Iuite extensively.

i DR. PAZUZAN: Now when those, when they cane out after public cument, let's see this would have been 1956 when they were finally issued. There, of course, there had been no cases where these could

{

be applied, in fact, the FeImi case is the first one where they -

~~

MR. IDENSTEIN: Certainly, the first test of what we were cbing

\\

==.c.

h.3 Ni 1

a e

..Z'.==.

^

2::.:.

==

:.

&==...

= -

... _... ~

'.5.~.I...

w

1

• 4 4.;.1;;

e:.=.==: I ci:."id==:: t

. =

i k=bt t:L t

.=.4 C===

DR. M ZUZAN:- I don't want to get into the Fermi case right yet.

N.!

MR. IGESTEIN: Okay.

.1..

DR. M ZUZAN: So after they were finaHy issued, then it was just a matter of sitting and waiting until scrTething happened that would Im i _...

test them.

Is my assuTption correct?

MR. IGHSTEIN: Wen, you know we didn't think of Part 2 in those years as waiting a test - these were the administrative procedures, in retrospect it was there in the procedure and the practice was waiting T

for it - for a test. There were very few pending cases then.

DR. m ZUZAN: Right.

MR. IGESTEIN: There just what? Cormonwealth Yankee, Camnonwealth

~~"

Dresden I, and Yankee, Ibwe and Indian Point.

.: w DR. M ZUZAN: Right.

MR. IG6 STEIN: ComTonwealth, Consolidated, and Yankee. And I l

think that was all there were. In tenns of kwer reactor applications.

l l

DR. M ZUZAN: Yes, that's right, so there really wasn't noch to C.1on.

r j

MR. ICESIEIN: And my recoUcction is that we got their applica-tions before the rules or about the same tine as these initial rules were. issued.

DR. MAZUZAN: Well, let's see, with nost - with Fermi which was

~ '

T" a little bit later than the rest -

MR. IGESIEIN: Fermi came later than the others, didn't it?

m DR. M M ZAN: Right. And Fermi was - cann into - weH, there

$[

=

-6

,,1'.C*..L.

RZ'L ".i

= =. - - - -

e

....'.^::...

.2E

,_.3_._

}..'

• ' ' ' ~

^

_._uan=- =r==u:e== m===wr===r+> j

b-~...

{ w ;a.-

w.s =

5~.. [.'.

y.; '"

8;-'..'..

+

..1 was talk about Fermi in 1955. They were - the Detroit Edison group was talking with the AEC at that tine about it and they issued their -

m or they applied formally for their application in Jantury of 56 so 7~"'""'"

basically that's at the same time that tluse rules were isoned - even 2

taar before actually - because the rules scrun't issued, I think, until

~

hhrch - February or March before they were finally - in 56.

MR. IONENSTEIN: In 56, yes.

C'2 E5 DR. FRZUZAN: So right, they were - the applications were there IE]

before the rules were established. But it's interesting that you r

sa

:n. :

didn't look upon these things as waiting any test period -

MR. IDWENSTEIN: No. But obviously, in retrospect, they were, g,.,_;

DR. FRZUZAN: Right.

p MR. IONENSTCIN: But it didn't otrre about so much as a test of P

the rules. It came about because of the controversial nature of the

=.

~=

t==m DR. FRZUZAN: Well, -I'm interested, too, in the sequence of.

L-e==

events that happened that led to the controversy over Femi - can you I22 shed any light on Comissioner Murray and his relationship with the.

other nenbers of the Comission?

RR. IOWENSTEIN: Well, it was controversial.

DR. FRZUZAN: Right.

. _=y MR. IOWENSTEIN: There are people still about who kncw noch nore

=---

about that part of it than I cb, who worked closely with Camissioner

=..=

Murray, and closely with Comnissioner Strauss. He had a - Murray had "s

'=mm a legal assistant at that tine - his nann was Dick Hallinad.

-~ ~."

[."E.'.

Z k-

.:.v.= ::::.i5 ~ ' ~

~'

.......N

' '- U *.,

'"a--*-

m-mm--=-^

~

'"~2^^^^^~*"

{; "

~

g.'.".".j:

t l

r.v:=

I ~

m DR. IGZUZAN: He's still with the DOE, isn't he?

e.ce=

MR. IGENSTEIN: Nc. he's with Canbustion Enginmring as its vice i

president, secretary and general counsel, Mn wrked for 'Itxn Murray for a couple of years and can tell you, give you a first hand view

~

of the dispute frun Tam Murray's point of view - far better than I.

At that tine, really, I was a young lawyer and

.= m really went to Conmission neetings on limited subjects.

I really

= + " = "

didn't know the background. I've learned since then much about it a

that I didn't even know at the tim 3.

Fenni - I don't really know what the personal relationships were - that got into all this.

Obviously, the input of field wrkers, Senator Clinton Anderson, Tcm

~~~~-s w.

Murray, antagonisms betmen Senator Andarson, Conmissioner Strauss, a lot of very pcuerful, dynamic personalities who didn't run away from

~

. = = -

controversy.

.. = =.

DR. FRZUZAN: When the Fermi hearings were finally es6hlinhed -

in the fall of 56, the ABC set te a separated staff to take care.of

.that case. Were you part of that?

MR. IDENSTEIN: I was not.

~

DR. FRZUZAN: Do you tuiud.er the rationale for that as to -

I think it's rather obvious perhaps why they separated the staff but -

MR. IDENSTEIN: Yes.

4 DR. FRZUZAN: - were there any other reasons other than the obvious one that since this was an inportant case that they had to have somebody working on it separately without being influen d by the

...=.

rest of the agency?

.=

,12 ':=.::~

1::=..::=..:

g' ?-

~

Y0.'*.:.' ::.::.:~b.5

-r

=_=......:...=..=..=........

.= f2. _.. = =.

- = =. = -

.===:

========-====1-

- - - = = =

lE" =_.

p D

4.=.3

==.w..

. 1

..uuuua.;. "l

.e p.

t -.

j

=

MR. IIXiENSTEIN: Well, yes, one ahrest has to go back to the very

[..

i mm beginning of the AEC regulatory program that concerns just the canbining

--,q 4._..

.... l of promotional and regulatory functions. They first began to appear -

F they began to appear at the very beginning. They probably predated

.= =

Formi, but they didn't reaHy surface or becme dranntic until the 7.T tine of Fermi. A separated staff was set up really to avoid dmination

]

of that staff or,Jin part, to avoid domination of that staff by those who wre also concerned with pratotional activities. The tension that 1

I referred to before was a kind of - I think probably - subconscious

.=.= = ; :

reaction on the part of scue of the lawyers and other people. We always in a regulatory agency have concerns as to h:w far do you go NTs to a-mudate the interests of the regulated. These are things which should be taken into account in a regulatory program. The purpose of

.z.==

..=

the regulatory program isn't to wipe out the industry you're regulating, it's to acbpt fair and rermtic regulations in the public interest

~2 without totally obliterating the industry that is supposed to be able to survive the regulation.

So this was built into it, this kind of stress, and the problan of balancing these interests is one that con-5-

fronted us very early. Very early you had people - you could almost E.27 identify, who was going to ham nore industry, less regulatory view

]

than scne of the others, who were equally interested in both, but

. ~.. =

th2ir point of view was such as to tend to put them in smewhat,,.

'."::" ~:

opposing positions fran time to tine.

[.~.'.-~ ~

Tr e DR. MZUZAN: But let ne ask you -

...:',~;;;; :

-K%,.

p

..e l'::.* 'Q c=

i.*.*.*,*.****D....n.-...-.

~"

~ ' ~ ~ '

$h,Y.$5::k:b'b:

~ l

~

t.

i :.m.

g s...f=.m -[ '

7..

=:-

MR. ICWENSTEIN: And you see this tension f.cm the very beginning.

~';

DR. hnZUZAN: Right, right. And it was very obvious in the g T=

~

record, as you read the record, it's there. But, let ne ask you about Frank Pittnnn because he latsr becane a developnental man. He headed the division of:- I can't rmember the title of the division now, but it was definately a cbvelogrental division - but initially under Civilinn Application he was deputy director. Was his function a

=

developrental function under Harold Pri ?

Ell......l12 t==::=:==N MR. IONENSTEIN: Well, I don't think Frank's was - I have to go think sare more about it and try to renember - I started, I didn't -

[.

to say I didn't think so nuch that it was a developrental function, h====

t==:===

but in part it nny have been. Frank certainly was less oriented to regulatory functions than either Harold or I were. I think he was an engineer, he cane at it without any regulatory activity in his

((

=~

background.

I think he very early did decide that he wanted - that he~ should - try to represent - I don't want to be unfair to Frank.

He didn't set hinself up as a representative of industry, but I think he did decide very early that he was going to use whatever insights and background he had to be sure the regulations weren't too onerous.

That put him in frequent opposition to the law and other people

~~

==

who I think didn't have quite so much of an industry orientation as

-

he did.

[;

DR. FRZUZAN: But let me ask you about his counterpart, Rogers htcullough, who after 1956, I think that's the correct date, becane L ';;;.;;.:.%

.:L.223

=.;:. :::::;;.

• a;;;2*.22 e

bE0 0$;=C=~5=L"*'

' ~ ~ '

~

I~

t'

"~"

.,:iik=_ __ - - --

=EM:i

. nn "~L_ :::D

^'

Gg-

!...::'.".r::

La i.l...

bi E"::. n r_.=

c.=.;

~

deputy director for Hazards Evaluation, made him an equal part to t===

Pitten as deputy director for Civilian Application, I gmss his title t u.n.=r.e w...

was. Was It:Cullough strongly regulatory?

'= =

MR. M H SfEIN: Ibgers was very strongly regulatory. And there gg was a lot of conflict there over - frankly, I don't ruruiber the cbh,W.

DR. MAZUZAN: I understand that - Cliff Beck sort of gave me a hint that there was a great deal of conflict between Harold Price and

= = =.

r;:

r===.

McCullough.

u==

MR. M H STEIN: Typically you muld see a lot of - you would see

.= = =.

a line up of - at som of these discussions of, I think Frank and Cliff

=="

Beck being on one side and the lawyers and som of the other engineers and Fogers McCullough generally being on tM other side.

I don't rutuiber Fogers being in as many of th2se ncetings, but the fact of the r

r...

natter is, the lawyers used to go in and talk to Bogers and scrue of

==="

the engineers to get his advice before som of these neetings to

~ =. - - -

v:

resolve the conflicts were held.

DR. MAZUZAN: Ibgers was a key figure in the technical side of the c

cbveloprent of the regulations, am I correct?

MR. M E FIEIN: Yes.

p _ =..

DR. MAZUZAN: Because of his position as chailman of the ACRS?

["""

MR. M E STEIN: Yes. And all these - the technical regulations I.1[. I were all reviewed with the ACRS and their wments were obtained.

Pbgers originally, when I first not him, was a consultant to the ABC

$3.12 y;;==.

t-. :

h.~I.I d511 j.pi:i=.

i:==.

g.

$...L.

^

.s..

e(._.

... =. = =. = = =... -... =.

. = = =...

=&=.:: 1;iss

~

bri.

and as a consultant, as I rwenber, was chainran of the Advisory -

1;;-

= p ::

tln predecessor to the ACPS - it skips m roa - eludes m*.

DR. MAZUZAN: It was the - there were tm committees. There was a reactor safeguard ommittee that Teller originally founded back 2n the 40s and there was one that dealt with the broader issms of

-7 g_ _

environmnt and siting that -

MR. IGGSIEIN: Ibgers was the chairman of that.

DR. MAZUZAN: He becam chainnan of that and then when they mrged them he becane chairran of -

MR. ID6 STEIN: He was a full tim enployee of bbnsanto, as I imuiber, at that early tine. And then later, later he becam - he was appointed on a full-tim basis, or perhaps he was a consultant on a full-tine basis, and then he was appointed to the Division of Civilian Application. But his main job was to be the cbaiman of the y,7--

ACRS. And he very jealously kept that work separate. That was always -

DR. MAZUZAN: Okay, I'm interested in that because it just strikes

.ne as being sort of curious that he could be chairran of ACRS - an

_. =,,

advisory ammittee which theoretically is objective and away frcm the air - and at the sane tine be the deputy director for Fawds Evalu-7

=._.

ation unchr the Division of Civilian Application which he was,. and

~

I'm not sure for how long, but he was at least in 56 and 57.

Do you see anything, in other words, is my outlook on that incorrect?

M....

l MR. IDESTEIN: You know, things would look very different today in retrospect when everybody is - thinks that you can achieve this l

..... =

aJ 4.L..

.-...I Y.'..

• ^*

m

g..., _ _....-==.. - -

........p

.....1.

prizia:ne: y p......

j E.

l

{=::. =.. j y:.:.-

..:.:......=.=..=

.;;4....L y.

total separation of responsibilities. The fact of the natter is the ACRS always functioned very indepenchntly and I think the fact is -

~===m unless my rewllection is totally playing tricks on ne - I think Ibgers, certainly gave ne th6 inpression of functioning as cbaim,n o'f the ACRS in a wholly independent way and when I say that, I'm talking about views and judgrrents on safety matters. He was not independent -

he didn't view himself as independent in the sense of keeping cases

%_ ___,3

,y noving or coordinating timing of matters with the rest of the division, and participating in division discussions, but in terms of the ACRS work his wrk his work as chaim,n of the ACRS - I (bn't think -

. = = =.

I just cbubt that there would have been any infringenent of their

==:.=_.

independen because I don't think they would have let - there be any. Certainly, no nore conflict than you would find in any separate 7

organization in the sane field.

I'm sure people talked to each other f f.-.-

about that but I don't think there was a conflict.

==

I thihik it was recognized by ew.rybody that the

~

ACRS was - going in perform independently regardless of where it was

- - ~ -

in the organizational franework.

~

DR. MAZUZAN: When you were writing the regulations you received help, as you nentioned, from other lawyers who were there. Whit about the technical side of it?

=.

MR. IDENSTEIN: Part 2 was written iniHally by lawyers and~then reviewed with other people in that task form and in the Division of

..Z.21.

.u n:2._.

...i...

.....;L;.

."L;.

r C.1.'.'

~.

h

.;;u=e

3 c..

~

a Civilian Application. But that was always regarded primarily as a lawyer's function. There was a fellow by the name of Chuck Manley -

1' m-a-n-1--e-y.

DR..M ZUZAN: Charles R$11ey.

Right.

MR. IfMENSTEIN: hho I think is - I have no idea where he is

~~~

now.

':.M'*M DR. MAZUZAN: He headed the limnsing branch.

T MR. IfMNSfEIN: Right. And he did a lot of work as I reTwiLer

7 with ITe ard others on the original Part 50.

DR. MAZUZAN: Was he a lawyer?

MR. IfMENSTEIN: He was not a lawyer. He was an engineer. And he regarded himself as a civilian ' application expert. His function, g

as he saw it at that tinu, was to help the lawyers develop these regulations in a way that would : rake scue sense to the industry.

I

-'=

cbn't think he had any special experience for this, but he was very good. And we certainly depended on him a great Mal.

7[

DR. MAZUZAN: Now, he supervised the process of the appl.ication 1l

=.

as it went through.

I believe that was his function, wasn'1 it?

MR. ICMNSTEIN: I don't leimiber him cbing that, although he nny well have.

DR. MAZUZAN: But the docketing of an application in the -

z.m.,...=

=i

MR. IfXENSTEIN: Did he do that or Lyle Johnson? Did Lyle. Johnson 7 -.-

take the job over frtxn Chuck Manley?

]

2.nn. ;

-ea

R

,.."a*C Gl.*L *: ::.4

?-

a.4

..m wn

~

g..

7---

.-.-.-m.........

= ::-

1.c=e.e

!=:=b"b

y

..... _... SH K.=..

=-

DR. MAZUZAN: There were tm branches there and one headed one

.=_ m and one headed the other and I think - and there was a lot of interplay

.. =. -"[" "

m there.

..c.=

.. =

MR. INENSTEIN: Okay.

I cbn't Aututber which -

]

DR. MAZUZAN: I'm not sure, I may have to go back and look at the record again but -

~

.==

~ MR. IG6 STEIN: But Lyle was not very nurh involved in writing

~

tM regulations, Chuck was. And then, an sce of the other regulations, there were other people. People, Part 30 on - annling with the

=

isotopes. I worked on the individuals from the isotopes branch. Scm

.=

people who were at Oak Ridge, a fellow by the nam of Ray - I forget Ray's last nane. - Ebersold.

DR. MAZUZAN: The major isotopes - he headed that extension.

..7-MR. IGESTEIN: He bnnelnd that extension. And there were people, T.~

som of wham are still thare or at DOE, who worked with me on isotopes regulations. And then on Part 20, Forest Wester was the technical person I worked nost closely with.

I'm sure a lot of other people would claim authorship of the original Part 20, but fran my perspective it was Forest Wester and myself. He and I basically did it together.

7-We had help frun many other people and we consulted many other people.

C But it was basically Forest and myself as I Auiuiber it.

= =

~

DR. MAZUZAN: Good. 'Ihat's really the type of infonnation that I needed; those are the holes that you can't see in' the record. They're C-just not there.

=

.;.L...'l.'

.. :.. '. ^.

2 :.u::.:.;;

.26.:U.*;;;

.a.-

s.

......J..

=*=m_m *'

• ;;; * * " ~ "

-r-c,::.;a.,Wwr

^ - - ^ - - ~...

!d::58:

!!== :; e.w::

=.

MR. IIXHSTEIN: We consulted with Lauriston Taylor who was chair-

=w =.

man of the NCRP at that tinn over at the Bureau of Standards, and we

((

consulted with people at Oak Ridge and Forest independently did a lot

=7

of consultation.

But basically that work was done by him and rne, as I h:ueler it.

7 '-

DR. haZUZAN: Did you people feel confortable with the regulations once they were out and had gone through this public review process?

~

MR. IGGSTEIN: I think so.

DR. FRZUZAN:

I ask that in the light that this was a new industry

=

and that you were Irm11y at the cutting edge of establishing sme-

= =

thing that was conpletely new and I would think that there would be a little bit of trepidation about' the direction that you're going in and ---

=

MR. IGHSTEIN: Oh, I'chn't think I've ever worried about those

~~~~

things. There are always too neny problems you have to go on to the

" = = =

next day to worry about the one you did yesterday. Frts the very beginning, as you know, everything we did was quite controversial.

_Z~

The controversies I used to think would begin to disappear as people h2came more accustomed to the atom. That obviously hasn't happen 6d.

-. ~;--

But there were always other things that we had to get on to. 'Ihere was never any time to worry about what we did last month. Except in

=w

connection with womething like Fermi.

2=

DR.1%ZUZAN: Okay, a bit about th3 controversy - it was contro-versial within the industry, but the general public generally did not p...._...

t:::

~

e.,.

g...

E555%

t2.:.C'.'C:1 S&p sa~e 5.hh ~~ ~

gm.

....ngg.-aw=

..N h.wecg -~.g

-..._.=ggg_-e-ununn ~.=;qng N <~~

~Y h_Nmy.-n

-m-~

.:..a..

p_.=

p_m.

[..:.:.:.

I-L-...

m p...

g_..

g.-

view it as being controversial, no,t the way that they loca upon it h

today, did they? As far as the regulatory aspects of it weie concerned?

= = " " -

In the mid 50s?

=

MR. IDMSIEIN: Well, it cbpends on when you - what period you

]l.,

start with. My best recollection is we didn't get public attention i2 in 1955 or 1956. But the stuff really hit the fan in 1957. I would have to go back and date other activities - I don't remmber when the

=

application for construction permit was filed on the Peach Bottom ll).

reactor, but there was a great deal of controversy about that and all of these early plants attracted attention.

DR. MAZUZAN: Iocally? Iocally where they were being constructed?

MR. IGUSIEIN: Yes. That's right. But they all were - alnost

~~

r-all - presented sone kind of public infornation problem. What you N-didn't find then, except for Fermi, was a national organization getting involved. These were grass roots things but the grass roots concerns quickly surfaced in the Congress and in the Congressional hearings.

[

9 Waste disposal was a problem, ainest frun the beginning, certainly fran the late 50s.

DR. MAZUZAN: The - another chapter that has to be written is Price-Anderson which this gets into -

~~~

MR. IDESTEIN: Sure.

==1 DR. MAZUZAN: You talk about public hearings and making the ACRS a - conduct a hearing on every - or having their safety reports made

=;.

public, making the ACRS a statutory group, of course, is all part of g

[::.==;.

i-s.= :::.::.-

'u=::==.

*,' u.

.

_,. =,

===:&

Immt

... 4N.ee

_. 4.....

.e SN e

NNb$$

:s

Pri -Anderson - so is part of the reaction of the JCAE pttting these

==

anendrrents on the Price-Anderson bill in regard to the ACPS -

MR. I4XHSTEIN: And hearing Inquirments.

= =

DR. FnZUZAN: And hearing requirenents - is that part of'this

.Z

_ = = = = _

grass roots reaction? Or is that a little bit too early for that?

=

MR. I4XHSTEIN: Oh, I think they are related.

I would certainly -

.=..,

no question in my mind about that. Now there was nore involved. h re

=--=-

were personalities like Senator Anderson, there was Strauss, the United m.==u Autonobile workers, I expect, in the background. The concern surfaced very early. The ACRS report on FeImi was leaked to Pearson and Allen,

= =.

Pearson and Anderson,'which was it at the tine? Drew Pearson, I guess, had it. Maybe it was Jack Ander'on though too. Herzel Plaine who did a mmorandu:n on wnflict of interest in connection with Di>on/Yates, his mmorandun was leaked in noch the sane way. The atcm has never -

m.=

and the Atanic Energy Ccmnis,s_ ion, were never quite free of controversy

= = =

so that these things attracted political attention, but also I think there was public concern back that far. And certainly with the Fermi case, the whole issue of prmotional versus regulatory re@onsibilities m.,;.i surfaced alnest instantly.

DR. bRZUZAN: It seems that out of that - out of Fenni we get,

="'""

~

of course, the ACRS business under Price-Anderson and a whole series

==U-5 of studies on the ABC licensing and the licensing procedures of the

=

regulations.

===a

~.

-. =. =..

t=====:

t== : -

6...._.....-

"?*_?

- -. _ ~ = ~ ~ -

x_,,_ 1' a,.- -

~ ;:: :::

:=uRT_ _- -- -_

^

y==

- rg MR. IDMSTEIN: One of my partners, incidentally, is Dave 'Ibll.

..=:-

I don't kncw if that's a nann you're familiar with, but when I first

.21 2

.

nut Dave he had just gone - he was - that was a long tire ago for him too - he'd just gone to work as a staff counsel for the Joint Canmittee on Atomic Energy and his first assignment was to write the staff study that the Joint Ccmnittee did on issuance of the Fermi construction permit. Dave is the author, basically, of the requirurent that you have a nundatory public hearing for every paer reactor and

"='""

test facility and he wrote the legislation requiring that ACBS reports be nude public, and he did the Joint Ctmnittee's report on, and the mnference conmittee reports on those bills. And he and I worked frcan TT..

our opposite vantage points on Price-Anderson and on federal statenents

=

as such and so forth. So he would be a good resource.

DR. mZUZAN: I read hi.s piece.

MR. IDESTEIN: Well, he's here and he'd be very interested.

-.m...

DR. MAZUZAN: Yes. That's good to know because I've used that

~

quite a bit.

MR. IDMSTEIN: Well, he can give you the Omnittee attitude

7_

and give you insights into what was happening in the Joint Ocmnittee TT.~.~_.

that I can't possibly provide. 'Ibe ABC itself was really just ground apart on that - over Fermi.

~

DR. MAZUZAN: Right.

..-. e MR. IOGSI'EIN: I don't know hcw nuch of this is reflected in

]

staff papers that went up to the Ocmnission and in the minutes of the

=

' : :,= 9

.====

s...._-..

Y z_ _

g:..- --

====::=:

me, w

...~.a.

_..m.

=.:. =:.

.- ; = _..

the Ccumission nectings. But you.Will find minutes of the Cottmission g,

neetings.for that period because Murray insisted on it.

DR. FRZUZAN: Well, one of the interesting things that came out of

]=="

Fermi is that - the Fermi thing broke in the sumer of 56 - and it was in Septenber of 56 they started to have separate regulatory neetings,

==="

which greatly helps my research.

MR. IOUSTEIN: I said certainly by 57 earlier and I neant 56.

7."-

I thought we issued the construction permit for Fermi in 57 through -

=._m

"="

I guess it's 56.

DR. FRZUZAN: It was tie sumer, it was August.

~

MR. IDESTEIN: It was the sumer.

56.

DR. FRZUZAN: And of cc trse the Price-Anchrson hearings were going on at that time.

MR. IDMSIEIN: Yes.

DR. FRZUZAN: So that's where the connection cxxtes in.

MR. IONSTEIN: It was 57 when tb Price-Anderson was pasM.'

And then Dave would have issued his study in early 57. That study of Z

AEC regulatory precedures.

DR. FRZUZAN: It might have been even earlier. F'aybe it was ZT~~ -~

late.- maybe late 56?

TT MR. IDMSTEIN: Might have been. Right in that period. Iate 56 m

to early 57.

DR. FRZUZAN: Which the AEC opposed. Were you on the opposite end of that argurent?

=

r w...

g===.....==

---=--=--,;---

~.. - -. -

_.;.=....=

. _...... =. = =.=.=,..,..

c..

_.z.

E-~ --~

....i pm l'

Dw:=...

.e=uw C:-

MR. IOWENSTEIN: Well, which'arguTent, because the AE had positions

{hj r

=--

not all of which I agreed with.

I got overruled internally on scate of thm. I doubt that this would appear in the record.

DR. mZUZAN: AEC took a position against public hearings. They 7==-

finally caved in to the Joint (banittee.

MR. INENSTEIN:

I was not opposed to that. One of the source

. ~..

cbetments, which if you haven't seen it, you will want to look at, and it may be referred to in Dave's staff study, and it is certainly in

{.

scne of the Joint Committee prints of that period, are sone reports of L.. -

seminars, in other words syntosia, at the University of Michigan Law l ~JLL4 SchDol.

O rv.--w=w DR. EZUZAN: That's right.

MR. IMENSTEIN: That would have b2en in the fall of 56 and there

=.

t===._

were a ntnber of rect nuendations adopted, as I mmber. One of them

[==--

was that there should be a hearing in connection with every construction permit. There were reo:maendations adopted as to a conbination 'of

~

..e regulatory and prcnotional functions. The train value of that now, it seems to ne, is to' identify what all these controversial issues were, JT that were being discussed.

I DR. EZUZAN: 'Ihe University of Michigan Law School was ve.ry active in this whole business of regulations - why is that?

- =.=--

MR. IMENSTEIN: That's because of Blythe Stason's interest.

~

DR. EZUZAN: I've read those papers and the later Berman and g.3

t......

Hydeman -

5.T E=. =.=.

m

• d.' C m........................

.n y

==

pm a

.:.u:..

.m.. EE5

. L...i

==m:.

s.=

MR. INENSTEIN: - Benmn and Hydemn study which they did on

_p _7 =4 Federal and State relations and they did a number of others.

f*

+.

DR. FRZUZAN: And they did one on the AT licensing process that came out in 61 which was instrumental in tin separation of developmntal -

._.C MR. I4XUSTEIN: Right.

DR. FRZUZAN: - from the regulatory. And of course that was under the sponsorship of the University of Michigan. So - but I never could get the connection as to why the University of Michigan took such an

~===:

interest in that.

""="

MR. I4XHSTEIN: That primarily was Dean Stason.

MR. FRZUZAN: Now Berran and Hydeman -

MR. IDMSTEIN: And Stason had som noney from scntshere that

.- a provided the support for this work and Bill Berman or Ice Hydeman can tell you where that cane from.

MR. FRZUZAN: E en did they leave the General Counsel?

MR. IfMENSTEIN: 'Ihey were only out there about two years, if I Ameiber carrectly.

DR. FRZUZAN: In the early 50s.

MR. IGHSTEIN: It must have been in the late 50s. If they

. _.1. ___

. - -I~3 isstnd:this report in 1961?

DR. FRZUZAN: I think it was - that's the publication date on it.

MR. IIAMSTEIN: Right.

~

DR. bEZUZAN: 'Ihe AT Regulatory Process, I think is the title.

=

. ~ '. =.-

..'_"1

. =,,

6.a=

m

.muup=*..M

.*es m

=

=

= = =

=

==.=s

o

..f:N::'

cr- :::

s

=:::..

==:

......:= an":5

:.==

...2.:.'.,i

. _:.~..

MR. IDESTEIN: Well, it nust have been two or three years either

.._.][

.::=.;

way.

==

DR. MAZUZAN: Did they go to the University of Michigan as - were

[.l.ll,;

:

they on the faculty of the Udiversity of Michigan?

MR. IDESTEIN: I don't think they taught. Ehether they had scrne

..:.~ ~~

kind'of faculty status, I don't know.

I cbn't think they taught, but they miight luve.

Either I didn't know about it or I don't 2.uiutiur.

,U. [

DR. MAZUZAN: N you know John Palfrey?

MR. IDESTEIN: Yes.

Nb

? = :-

DR. FAZUZAN: I net him on a couple of occasions in Victor Gilinsky's -

MR. IDESTEIN: I think John would be very interesting to you.

He's still at Colmbia Inw School.

DR. FAZUZAN: Yes we've chatted briefly about scue of these things but without going into any kind of detail and be seened very interested in pursuing it.

=] ~

DR. IDMSTEIN: His assistant, incidentally, I'm just trying to give you nancs - but there was a woman who worked for him, she's a T =_=

lawyer, a very good lawyer, she's now at the Justice Departnent. Her nann is Harriet Schapiro and she basim11y was John's legal assistant.

]

She had originally worked with ne and with others in the General 7~

Counsel's office. She knew John from Coltubia and I think when John was appointed a Ctmnissioner it was alnest inevitable that he was

==

g-............

te.

g.==

t:2.c : :

p__

- ^::.:r -

kggj.=si u.:.uz:. __

":uu :::.

~

~ ~ ~~

~

.E::=.

===- s

..4 going to ask her to cme up and work with him. He did and she did.

-;a-m So in tems of sone of the things that were going on that John muld

.Z have participated in and that she might have seen fram a different

=

point of view - I think that Harriet could good sourm. But that's

.[C,

.m a'later tine.

="

DR. MZUZAN: Okay, but I eventually wanted to get into that too.

I think that what we've done so far is we've run out of, at least from

=

my point of view, as to as far as I've gone in my research. I don't know whether I could ask you any intelligent qtustions from this point c=

forward but what I would like -1suggest - is that we adjourn, and as I get into my research further, I'd like to cm e back and sit down

=="

.M and talk with you about scue of these later things.

MR. ILWENSTEIN: Sure. Sure, I'd be glad to talk to you later.

DR. MZUZAN: And maybe by that tine I'd have had a chance to

=

talk to scue of these people that you've nenticned to me and I'll have a better picture and we can delve into it even nore.

MR. IDKENSTEIN: We haven't touched on Fermi. Fermi really is

--- - ~

the key to a lot-of what's happened since then.

_7 DR. mZUZAN: That's right.

==[

l

.MR. IDWENSTEIN: Fr.rmi Imlly was the crystalization of scue of the issues that late'; gruw and grew and grew and - the General Cbunsel

- *iiE of the AE during the period we're speaking of was Bill Mitchell.

DR. M ZUZAN: Right.

I've seen his name.

];]

eee

.LL

. d,: L^.'.LLi 7.~.;a '. :

^

p..

1.

cc, -. _... _.

.,,.n.-

._.w.-_.,.-

. - - -.... ~. -. - --

4 --

yy=.- a e

s g....

g t..

m k.=.ra::

W=..

• g.... =

h.-.

L..

{.5:r. 5 sIE22 MR. ILEENSTEIN: Bill is - I think not well - but I think he is En +m

.=.=

probably available to you to talk to - in any event you won't find

.r out unless you mil.

DR. FAZUZAN: He's in the Washington area?

MR. IDENSTEIN: He is in the Washington area, he lives here, he

==-

and his wife, they never noved away. He was General Counsel from 1953 certainly until well after the Fermi period. I kould gmss it was to -spretty close to 1960. He was basim11y, as I rem 11, Iewis s

r-Strauss' selection for tla job and was qv'c e close to Strauss. Of w.

course, a lot of what he did overlaps with the Oppenheiner case, the cbveloprtent of trre s4 legislation on which Cox Trowbridge can give

=

you rore details, I think, than Bill. But Rill Mitchell, from a different perspects.ve, really was cheply involved in the Murray-Strauss controversy, in a position where he really had to keep lots of ocxmuni -

.==

cation open. To get a Murray point of view, there's nobody like Dick Halanane. He has a good mmary, can rmily tell you a lot about

.. ~. ~

what was happening.

C DR. FAZUZAN: The whole periot is just so exciting to me -

}.{

MR. IGENSTEIN: The politics I still find fascinating. You've 7

got Reuther in the UAW with his direct line to Clinton Anderson and the hostilities between Anrhrson and Iewis Strauss. And Murray with raem his own lines cbwn to Anderson and Reuther. Until you get scrne of this Z

sorted out, it rmily is going to - I've never been able to sort it g.........

out.

[.......

nx==

,..e.ea.

G

=

e h

$& Sf5$

NhY'

uw t

.u.a

(

't..~._..

t--c y :.....

e. v y:

p.:

,. = =.4

.===.:

'DR. FRZUZAN: That's the problem -hat I have - that's why I a==

y=

hesitate to go see people until I c.

get sono of those lines straightened out.

It's rmily a job in itself but there are really a lot of sources I haven't touched on. Clint$. Aadarson's papers are at the Library of Congress and I'm sure that there is sono material in there that -

=

MR. IGEtGTEIN: You could write a book about the controversy alone.

Jim Raney, who was their staff director, General Counsel for the Joint

.]

Conmittee, was very close to Senator Anderson and Jim is still in

"=="

Washington, as I'm sure you know.

DR. FRZUZAN: Well, you've given ne a host of nanos and I'.J. pull 1.Z them all off this tape and drum up my list.

MR. IGEtGTEIN:

I would.l_Ude to know nore about what was going

=:

on then about Fermi.

It isn't only just about safety and the safety

~

of the plant.

In the background is a fellow by the nane of Walter Cisler.

y DR. FRZUZAN: Yes, president.

. _]

MR. IOWENSTEIN: He was president of Detroit Edison.

!= -

DR. FRZUZAN: He is still aliu?

MR. IOWENSTEIN: Yes, and I _think actm1ly he was providing -

b~

I'm not sure - I always had the inpression that some foundation that

~~

he was actim in was providing sorte of the noney for Blythe Stason's work at the University of Michigan.

It was always a surmise. I'm not sure, I never knew that to be the case. But you may find.scrre

=I;

==

cannection there.

=,=;

DR. MAZUZAN: Well, you certainly have been a tremendbus source.

=

Z.;%20:.

0;;":.4

=

- - - - - - - - +