ML19351F094
| ML19351F094 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/11/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19351F095 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-44FR70408, FRN-45FR31393, REF-10CFR9.7, RULE-PR-60 SECY-80-474C, NUDOCS 8012290476 | |
| Download: ML19351F094 (34) | |
Text
f e
v.
A n
O I.b
,.4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CDMMISSICN n1 0
O-J b,7 ud 2
(
P I:1 tte.%ttar cf:
DISCUSSION OF SECY-80-474 - FINAL RULE 10CFR 60 - DISPOSAL OF HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES - LICENSING PROCEDURES
(
(
DATI: December 11, 1980 PAGES: 1 thru 32 1
l AC:
Washington, D.
C.
l 1
l N
0 1
?
9 H
g:
r
,2
=
s:zB
.T;i '::
2
=
6Y i.Tdh c.]
b f
-k 400 Vi_Tinia Ave., 5.W. Wasning c::, D. C.
20024 Talachena: (202) 554-2245 s
8012290 @ b[
l
\\
I AR:bar 1
I i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
1 3
I 4i e
5 N
DISCUSSION OF SECY-80-474 FINAL RULE 8
6 l
10 CFR 60 DISPOSAL OF HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN GEOLOGIC RE P O S I TO R'* ES LICENSING PROCEDURES 7
8 8.
I l
d I
d 9,
i O
i g
10 l 3
l E
11,
j Room 1130, 1717 H Street Northwest, 4
12 j
Washington, D.C.,
j 13 '
E Thursday, December 11, 1980 E
14 5
l M
I 15 g
The meeting convened at 10:35 a.m.,
pursuant to 16 i
h j
notice.
,y 17 i x
Present:
=
i 18 l
=
I JOHN AHEARNE, Chairman.
w i
l g
j9 l JOSEPH HENDRIE, Commissioner.
j VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner.
20 l i
Present for the NRC Staff:
21 W.
Dircks J.
Martin 77 J.
Davis G.
Cunningham 23 P.
Camelo 24 !
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
o 0
l 1
ALSo PRESENT:
l 2i Samuel Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.
3 Leonard Bickwit, office of the General Counsel.
4 e
5 Aa 3
6, e
l a
N 7
s 8
8 N
d h
9l Y
E 10
=Z 5
=
11
<E d
12 !
z i
5 I
d 13 l s
E 14 x
D I
15 I w
2 T
16 l 3
l 17 ;
m
=
18 !
i C
I 19 l s
i n
20l 21,
i 22 !
23 24 I i
25 I
alt >ERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
o c 5t-1 rt nis is a===cificia.L ::2:se:1p: cf a. =ne-'
g cf -de:C.i:ad Sta:as Nuciaar Zag.:la:::7 Casien heli en,,,,
_en i=.:ha Cc==1ssi:n's.officas a: 171~ I Scraat, Y. '4.,'Jash1=g:==,
U. C.
S a =ne:1=g as open = puh t # - at a=da=ca and cbservatic=.
" dis. &~~p has c= been: :sviawed, cc :se:ad, er edi ad, and 1: =ar c==:a1= i=ac==ac14s.
i na ::x= script is i=:a= dad solely f r gn=aral ' #:r. a 1 =al purycsas.
As p..v_ dad by 10 us. 9.102, 1: is se: par of -la f::=al er d #":=a.L :scari of decisic.. of de_ =a::ars discussed.
Izpress10 s of cu'-d en i= -lis ::a= scrip = dc=== cacassar-17 raflace fi=al datar. d=2:1 =s or be11afs.
No plead 1=g er c-lar page =a7 be.filad vi:E -l e C.
'esi:=.i= a=7 pr:caedi=g as -la.
asu1= cf or addrassed := a=7 s:2:a=a== c ar;;;==== c:=:21=ad har=d, azcap= as da Cen=rission =ay au:he:f:a.
I i
.ey-,-
-_.,----w
.e-g
,*w---
-*'-e
- " * ' = - * ' ' - - ~ ' ' * - ' ~ ' - " ' ~ ' ' ' ' - - -
1 1
3 1 i
_P _R _O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S i
2l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The 9eeting this morning is a series a
3 of meetings which the Commission will be holding every two weeks 4
until we get this final rule out, in the hope that the record g
5 at least will clarify some of the remaining issues.
So we s
6I have before us three papers which I would hope we can discuss R
et 7
in sequence.
A 8
First is the 474C which is a paper that came out O
t 9l D e c emb e r 9 th, which is a supplement to the final rule, making 3
10 some changes.
E j
Il '
And the second is a paper unlabeled, which I imagine 3
I II l will be 474D, which is a supplement to the 474C, and then the 5
l 13 I' third is a memo from the General Counsel regarding this final 5
E i
n 5
14 !
rule.
And I'would hope that we can talk to each of those in N
l g
15 turn.
16 l
=
j l
So, sill, since the first two come from the Staff, I
N l7 f would you like to summari=e what they are and what the issues 3
i i
E 18 l are?
1 C
19 '
b g
MR. DIRCKS:
I' ll let Jack take this 474C item, and 5
l 20 then if you could I add before he begins, a couple of more l
l 2I recent developments.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Sure.
i i
23 MR. DIRC KS :
Last night we received a call from the 24f Office of the Assistant Secretary for Military Programs in the 25j Department of Energy, indicating that that program had not had l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
l i
4 1,
the opportunity to put together its comments.--
l 2'
(Commis sioner Hendrie entered the conference 3j room at 10:37 a.m.)
4
-- and indicated that within a week they'd like to be i
e 5i able to come forward with some comments on the rule, and they N
6!
would appreciate our being able to deal with those comments R
l 8
7 in the context of the rule.
A h
8 Now when I say within a week, maybe th a t '. s a target d
i 9l date.
It may be a week or slightly more.
z i
O 10 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would guess that we would be z
1
=
l j
11 l going fo rward with this rule, and I'm not sure how rapidly we 3
f 12 f will be closing, but I think we are closing on a final rule, 3
j 13 and if they have something to add, I would guess (a) it would
=
m 5
I4 l have to be very important for us to do any reconsideration; and 9
1' r
15 (b) it better be timely, because we are closing.
wm j
16 i MR. DIRCKs:
I think they are aware of that, and A
i 17 j working very hard to put it together.
I think it would have to am I
M 18
-l 6
be because there are now, I guess, indications that Congress
=
l h
u 19 l wishes to split within the Department of Energy the military g
5 20 waste question from the civilian waste question, and there is 4
/
2I '
naturally some cross-problems there in just organizational',2 A
12 getting the comments together.
23 The second point, if I could make it, is the memo 24 that I sent to you unlabeled and dated December lith.
25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's the second paper.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
j
5 i
j4 MR. DIRCKS:
That's the second paper.
Would you care to take the first one?
3 i
i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The first first; and then the I
4 second, second.
I
' ' e ' -~ i MR. MARTIN:
The firs t paper we discussed last g
i 6!
.!- week with the hand. outs that ELD provided were not lined out and c
N I
3 7i i
b
]
lined in, in this text.
M i
9 3'
M CHAI RMA N AHEARNE:
This makes no other changes?
d z-9!
m MR. MARTIN:
Is that correct?
_.0 F-10 l MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That's correct.
i Z
l E
Okay.
Very good.
3 d
12 z
I greatl3 appreciate it.
=
=
13 -
All righ.t.
That's easily done with.
All right.
The i
x l
=
14 i g
i second paper, then.
N i
r 15 i 2
l MR. DIRCKS:
The second paper is I would like
=
i 16 l 3
to call on -- attempt to clarify and simplify the process.
It's A
h^
17 9
g a result of a meeting that we had with the representative of
=
l A
E 18 !
=
l the Waste Management Program in DOE.
They wish to point out 9
E 19 !
i g
that in the site characterization program, they will be 20 developing reports on environmental impact statements, public 21 I!
i meetings, ge tting. th em to the point where they characterize sites.
l l
22 I think what we tried to do is assure them that i
i 23 '
l what we didn't want to do is duplicate the public meetings that 24 they were going to hold on their own report, and if they were i
25 going to circulate their report, we felt as though we shouldn't l
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6 I
1 '
be in the business of circulating their report.
What we tried i
2l to do is in two places in our rule indicate to the extent that 1
3l doe is already circulating th eir site characterization reports i
i 4i and holding public meetings on such reports, that we see no i
5:
reason why we should do it also in the site characterization e
a l
a I
-e 6,
program.
e E
7 We feel cs though to the extent they have covered a
8 8'
information satisfactorily in their environmental i= pact state-n d
9l
=ent, they would not have to repeat that information in their Y
10 submissions to us.
r i
=
2 11 :
They could incorporate it by reference to the
<3 l
1
=-
12 i environmental impact statement.
These are essentially the two z
i i
E 13 1 items that I have included in this December lith memorandum, and M
14 :i z
we can discuss that, if you wish to.
E l
2 15 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe, did you have any questions a.
a T
16 !
on that?
3 i
17 i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
This December lith thing is j
a I
E 18 i now o in this series?
1 E
i E
19 ::
MR. DIRCKS:
D.
t x5 I
l 20 !
SECRETARY CHILK:
It will be.
i 21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Can I get a couple of assurances t
i 22 '
then?
l 23 l (Laughter.)
1 24{
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What did you have in mind?
t-
... O d.r$
25
"""'I haven't gone back and reread all the comparative A
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
e 7
I text.
The things that I was interested in being sure were and 2
were not there were, first, that there is nothing in these 3
regulations which would prohibit a spent fuel storage facility 4
on a reactor site.
g 5
MR. MARTIN:
On the waste disposal. You said a h
I h
6 reactor site.
R CS I
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
E*
h 8
MR. MARTIN:
Gdy, do you want to deal with that?
d i
e 9
~,
j (Commissioner Gilinsky entered the conference i
3 10 room at 10:40 a.m.)
E II MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Are you asking whether..these regula-12 E
tions: prohibit spent fuel storage or waste repository on a E"
13 reactor site?
This rule doesn't deal with storage facilities 5
I4 l PI'$
l a t A?-IF.
b i
e j
15 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Secondly, is there anything i
[
I6 l in these regulations which would prohibit canning or capsulation l
l l
N I7 i facility at the repository site?
w
=
3" 18 (Mr. Martin shaking head negatively.)
P I
l9 '
n l
A-nd what came out of -- let's see.
It seems to me at s5 20 I one point there was something like three sites and two media II l
suggested as a reasonable minimum for --
22 MR. DIRCKS:
Three?
Is that three to five, or I
23 something like that?
24 MR. MARTIN:
Well, we said a minimum of three sites 25l and two media, yes.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
g j
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
And that hasn't changed?
7 ;
MR. MARTIN:
No.
I COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You'd like more, but in 3
a o : +1 ~-n_(
terms of content 4
y I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
My sense is that is something e
5l 5
l l
^
"4 that Commissioner Bradford is going to be providing some E
g, g
comments on.
7 8.
MR. MARTIN:
We haven't gotten any comments.
l et f
y 9l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, right.
But I believe he will i
be.
So that review is still an open issue.
E 10 1
I jj j COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That's all I've got.
t B
.j jg CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Len, you sent us a 3
men which raised a couple of interesting questions.
I guess 13 E
i y
g4 ';
what I'd be interested in is having you summari=e your point N
l 15 l and hearing the Staff response.
w I
m 1
16 l MR. BICKWIT:
Sure.
I've already had some informal
~
3 i
c j7 ;
discussions with Guy on this.
The first point related to NRC 2
l jg i deference to DOE on the defense and security matters.
l
=
l u
[
19 Guy points out that we may have overstated the extent 5n 20l t
which Staff anticipates deference, but what concerned us was l
i i
21 n page 44 of the comment analysis, the reference --
22 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
What enclosure is that?
l l
23 MR. BICKWIT:
Enclosure B.
i I
The Staff response to the comment which says,."With 24 l 25 respect to-common.' defense and security, the Staff believes that f
ALDERSON REPORT!NG COMPANY, INC.~
L-
l A
9 I
reliance upon 30E, which itself is subject.t o the Atomic Energy
)
2 Act, is app rop r i.a te in providing for NRC to exercise licensing i
3) authority, Congress wanted to make sure that issues of health 4l and safety were reviewed independently, with opportunity for 5l e
public participation.
, Extending NRC's substantive review to O
j 6;
common defense and security issues would not promote tne R
e" I
achievement of this objective."
E k
0; And we simply wanted to make clear that it was 9l d
i e
anticipated that while there might be some deference to DOE, 3
10 'j u
that the authority to make the ccmmon defense and security 3
k Il judgment is with NRC, and it alone hcs authority to do that, 3
12 '
E l
and if that is the understanding, then I think we would have no m
i l
II!'
n e
problem, but this particular response to the comment would not E
14 5
give that understanding.
C
_0 15 g
M R., CUNNINGHAM:
I don't think we are terribly far m
i
'U a p rob lem o f wo rdsmithing."/
9 16 l apart on this one.
It may just be
-4 l
A j7 '
a A
It would be the intent of the Staff that substantial deference a
r i
=
IO wculd be given to DOE certification, that the common defense Ch I9 !
and safety would be adequately protected, and that it would be g
n l
20 unlikely there would be substantial Staff review of that 2I certification unless some question appeared on its face, or 22 l in the course of a hearing process, a contention was raised.
i 23 '
The rule does preserve the requirement that we make 24 l a
the finding as to the common defense and security.
That's a 25,
finding mandated by the Atomic Energy Act.
}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
10 I
1!
So I think it's fair to characterize the Staff l
2 position as one that it will give substantial deference to the 3
DOE certification and the common defense and security is adequately 4
protected.
5l MR. BICKWIT:
But that NRC would retain the final g
i j
6 authority, even in an uncontested -- even if the issue were R
7 uncontested?
E j
8 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
The final authority and the obliga-d y
9l tion to make the finding.
s 5
10 i MR. BICKWIT:
Right.
l 2=
i j
ll l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It might be useful if tha, were S
l
"" " h c. f../. A.-4.-
,j)Ykil_f. ; re-be 12 l clarified in the comments.
any problem w.*h that
=
a i
13 1 -a
=a. po s ition ?
g
=
n 14 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What does it mean?
I b
15 ;
r I think the difference MR. BICKWIT:
It means that w
l l
g 16 l between " deference" and " abdication" is clear.
In one case you A
i 17 l may attention, you pay pretty strong attention to what DOE says.
w=
1 a
1 A
18 !
In the other case, you just listen to what DOE says and that's it.
F l
5 19 l! And we have trouble with the second formulation.
g n
20li COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What are we talking about?
I I
2I i Guards in the facility?
Protecting the --
t i
22 MR. DIRCKS:
Safeguards.
23!
COMMIS SIONER GILINSKY:
Protecting the site?
24 MR. DIRCKS:
That's right.
That's what we're talking 25,
about.
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i j
11 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Safeguarding the site.
And 2,
you're talking about a DOE statement that the site is adequately l
3l guarded, or what?
e,.
., 5 n b ' V 4i MR. CUNNINGHAM:
And p ro t e c te d w ith _sa60eME--ee the s
5 same safeguards that they apply to other DOE sites.
They are n"
i g
6l
~
like us, bound by the Atomic Energy Act to assure the protection 7l of common defense and security.
S
~
\\
k 8!
I think it's fair to state that the Staff did not 40 9
z, at the time they prepared the rule contemplate an extensive Oy 10 ;j review of the safeguards aspects of the repository.
3
-k Il MR. DIRCKS:
That's right.
5 I
32 :
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
All right.
Em I
7 g
13 !
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Why don't you try to clarify and i
z I4 !
I guess that would meet your objec' tion, then?
w I
15 l c
MR. aICKw:T:
That's right.
am l
1 I0 l
p 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
Len, your second point?
z d
17 ;
The second point relates to alternative z
l 18 l sites.
In our discussion last time, the question was raised as to 5
=
t a
+
b i
I9 '
g just what does give us the authority to presecribe three alterna-5 1
20 l tives as a minimur., and there was a statement in the common 2I analysis that suggested that NEPA didn't give us that authority, I
22 i
and there were also a number of s tatements that we raised here 1
23 that suggested the Atomic Energy Act doesn't give us that 24 ]3 authority.
n 25 our view is that both the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA I
d ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l t
12 I. give us the authority to prescribe. three as a minimum, to 2 l prescribe a reasonable rule, and a reasonable rule would appear 3
to include a rule which said three is a minimum, and any statemenc 4
to the contrary, I think, ought to be taken out of the comment S
5
- analysis, n?
l 6!
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now one, I guess, could extend F
l E
7 that to say that that similarly could be used to say that four 0
A 8!
is a minimum, or three is a minimum, or five is a minimum; is d
m O
9 2,
i that correct?
And is the point you are making that the agency 10 l O
I can reach a judgment as to what it believes is a reasonable z
1
=
k Il number and defend it on the grounds that you have raised?
3 12 !
E i
MR. BICKWIT:
I believe so.
=
i m
13 !
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We have a measure of disagreement 5
I4 li z
we discussed earlier, as to the extent to which the Atomic E
15ll g
Energy Act is authority for requiring consideration of alternative i
=
t l
d I0 !
sites.
i N
I7 Clearly if the Staff thought it was unable to make a 5
e
[
IO l finding of reasonable assurance by looking at only one site --
r G
I9li let's assume there was no NEPA then the act gives it enough g
5 i
20[ authority to look at others.
2I on the other hand, the traditional -- the licensing l
22 l approach and the approach that we will have when we have the l
23 technical criteria of this rule in place, is that if you meet 24 '
the criteria, you are entitled to a license.
j 25 So the question boils down to will you need to look i
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
[
13 1 l at other sites to see if the performance criteria are met.
I i
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Len, would you talk a little 3'
bit more?
I'm not sure, are you saying our position would be 4
that since we know what is going to be required to provide g
5 adequate pro te c tio n, that we can say that we believe that to N
j 6j provide that adequate protection will take examination of some R
l
(
7 number of sites?
i U
l j
8; or the alternative would be you are saying that we i
d l
- [
9 aren't really sure what's going to require adequate protection, 2
O I
10 l so consequently we want an examination of a number of sites, E
=
11 l and then based upon the characteristics of those sites, we will 43 I
I l
j 12 l reach a conclusion as to whether or not we think we will provide l
3 i
d 13 !
adequate protection?
=
m t
3 14 I MR. BICKWIT:
I think it's a factual judgment.
I H=
2 15 think if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not' fee?
w=
1 16 i
confident, does not feel easy with the notion of simply g
i n
l D
l d
17 l prescribing criteria and not comparing sites, all of which meet w
=
i
'A 18 :
w th o s e criteria in order to determine what is a reasonable way F
G 19 to go forward here, that the Atomic Energy Act does give the g
5 20 Commission the authority to prescribe a requirement that j
21 alternatives be looked at.
l l
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Let me go to a -- far ahead.
Let's 23 '
suppose we come to a point where the Commission is now about to 24 '
reach a decision on construction authorization.
Does the 25 Commission at that time reach a finding that that site will i
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
I l'
14 4
1 I
1 provide adequate protection, or do we reach a finding that of 1
2 f the sites looked at, that is the best site?
l 3 i MR. BICKw ":
It's the first.
1 4
CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
It's the first.
e 5
MR. BICKWIT:
Right.
But adequate, I think, has N
6j included within it the notion that this is good, and that I
7' has included within it th e notion of some comparison.
This j
8 is really a question of the technical judgment of the Commission.
d i
9l At the last meeting I got the impression that the I
10 j Staff comments were to the effect that Staff might not be j
ll comfortable if it couldn't look at various alternatives.
3 i
j.
ll i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think that's true.
=
l 9
I g
13 i MR. BICKWIT:
And if that is the case, and there m
j I4 were no NEPA, I would say that the Commission does have the a
k i
E 15 '
authority to look at those alternatives under that circumstance.
a
.~.
=
g 16 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But and I'm not going to try I
d l
l y
17 :
to speak for the Staff,t for what the Staff believes. My view dC I.
I8 l is that it is necessary as a sort of federal government policy M
=.
t"-
I9 g
to look at alternatives, in order to make sure there are enough 5
20 parallel tracks being followed, so that if one or two turn out II not to be acceptable, that there is still a reasonable chance i
22 ' 'that one of them is going to turn out to be acceptable.
23 l
- a. pi But I must admit I based that more on a perspective 24f that that's the way you get a sound national policy, as opposed l
25 to that in order to reach a finding that one of them is adequate, l
l t
t
?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
L
l i
i 15 Il I guess at the moment I don't see any problem with on our i
2 I finding of adequacy, of looking at one at a time.
I i
3i The problem that I see is that as far as a national 4
program is concerned, we may very well look at that first one 5
g and say it's not adequate, and then if there are a consecutive 4
1
'E 6l series, it could make a very, very long program.
Eo 7f E
MR. BICKWIT:
I'm not saying that the act imposGs A
i 5
8 M
j a requirement, a procedural requirement on you as to how you 6
9
~.
have to go.
I'm saying that if the Commission wants to look at 2
O i
"6 10 l these alternatives, I think there's authority in the Atomic z
=
i II Energy Act to do that, in pursuing the question of "is this a
dz' 12 i adequate protection."
5 I
a i
5 CHiIRMAN AH EA RNE,: And I gather that's wher.e ELD has i
x 14 I
=p i
some disagreement?
E 9
15 g
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
No.
I think we agree with the Ib premise that if it's necessary to determine adequacy that you z
I
- y 17l look at more than one site, the Atomic Energy Act will permit you 2
18 l w
to do that.
And to the extent that there are any words in here P
19 ;'
E that cast doubt upon that proposition, we can take them out.
n 20 '
That's fairly easily done, and I think that's all General Coonsel 9"1 was asking.
i 22 I i
MR. BICKWIT:
That's correct.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe?
24 1
All right.
So, then, I gather that you will try to 25 at least work with th em and see what the --
r i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 16 Il MR. CUNNINGHAM:
We can work with them.
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
All right.
Our third 3l point?
I i
4l MR. BICKWIT:
Not quite.
There's a cecond half to the g
5 second point.
2
+g 6
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Oh, that's right.
That's right.
R I
C S.
7 The banking.
A O
MR. BICKWIT:
There was some discussion of site d
I e
I 2,
9:
banking at the last meeting.
All we are saying here is that 10 l if the commis sion now contemplates two or three waste disposal z
i m
I ll sites in the last analysis, that it might want to consider E
N l2 l a slate larger than a minimum of thtee.
Guy has pointed out to E
l j
13 l me that the requirement of the minimum of three is not m
W I4 exclusive of the requirement in Part 51, that there be an b
f 15 adequate number of alternatives examined in association with
=
g 16 l every decision under NEPA.
l N
II f The only point we are making here is that if the w
f IO l 5
l Commission has in mind how many sites it wants in the end --
P I
19 i 9
i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We don't want -- we want to have a 5
l 20 l regime in place that as Energy Department proposes sites, we l
2I!
can handle it.
i 22 ;
MR. BICKWIT:
All I'm saying is that if you believe 23 !
that the number of sites that is going to be selecte d under this 1
24 f regime is on the order of three, then a slate of sites that is 25 -
characterized as a minimum o f three is not going to make it under i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
17 l
1 NEPA, and if that is your --
2l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, let me see if I can under-l 3i stand what you are saying.
Let's say we say a minimum of three, 1
I 4i and the first cycle through DOE examines three sites, and in.the l
5 l-process ends up choosing one of those.
e 8
3 6
And in our examination of the other two, we have e
i g
5 7
reached the conclusion that they meet our adequacy test.
Now E
8{
3
,5 DOE wants to go for second s ite.
l 4
d m}
9l Are you saying that you don't believe that the E
10 l remaining two suffice for an examination of alternative sites for z
=
E 11 ;
that second site they want?
M i
y 12 l MR. BICKWIT:
It's an easier question if you get to 3
I i
13 I their picking the third.
=
14 ;!
z C HA IRMAN AHEARNE:
No, I want to get to picking cb2-g a
i 15 l!
second.
r W*
I g
16 ;
MR. BICKWIT:
Then it's close.
Then it's-a close W
d 17 '
question.
w E
18 I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Would you say that if they added a t
i=
\\
}
19 l third site, would it be adequate only to do a characterization n
i 20 {
for that third site and compare it with the already-done 21 characterizations?
22 MR. BICKWIT:
Most likely, yes.
23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
And similarly, if they decide 24 '
they want a third one, they've got one left out of the original, 25 a second one out o# the second, and if they add a third i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
18 I
characterize a third site and add it, why, you're still looking 2
at three in order to choose one.
That certainly seems to me to 3
meet the NEPA alternatives.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But here your argument is 5
g MR. BICKWIT:
My concern is that if you see that 9
k 0
happening, it might be best to anticipate it early.
R D
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But here your argument is based E5 8
M not upon, as the previous case, our ability to require three dx
~.
9 l.
for adequacy; now you are saying that we might end up requiring 3
three for NEPA.
3 k
MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
3 12 f
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now would you then step back and 3"
13 '
5
)
say that therefore you would reach a conclusion that for this i
N I4 l A
first one, we would require three for NEPA7 E
MR. BICKWIT:
I think that is a reasonable place to m
l E
I0 draw the line, as far as the rule is c o,n c e r n e d.
l I
As Commissioner Hendrie pointed out last' time, it m
II would be senseless to say that NEPA had a rigid requirement I
19 '
8 i
that there must be three.
If it's absolutely obvious that n
1 I
20 l there's one site that's the best of all possible sites.
I don't 21 l read NEPA th a t way.
But three seems to me to be a good place to l
l 22 4 l
be as you approach the problem.
i 23 :'
I'm not saying that NEPA clearly requires three.
24 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
This is really long-range l
25 conjecture, because we are now talking about events that might i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
19
.c I, be happening in the '90s.
I 2 i (Laughter.)
3 Philosophical discussions: occupy a large part of our 4
time, anyway, so answer one more question g
5j Are you saying that your reading of NEPA is su,ch that 0
l h
0l if we looked at three alternative sites that DOE proposed we R
- S 7
examine, did an alternative site analysis, all three meet our s
E 8 1 5
j adequacy requirements, and all three are approximately equally J
l x
9il good, that choosing one doesn't enabla you to then at a later
.2
=
1 g
10 date choose the second and the third from that set?
z E
II l MR. BICKWIT:
I am saying thag once you get into 3
I N
Il f the third, I am saying that.
~
\\
13 '!
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Any other questions?
~
y 3
14 Q
Jack?
2 3
15
~
g j
MR. MA RTIN :
Well, you know, there are other alterna-I m
I y
16 l tives there once you have the three sites characterized.
A
\\
17 '
y j
For example, if I were picking the second site, I E
I would thi,nk about making the first site bigger, for example.
C 19 it's much more 2
You know, so there's more than just n
i 20 l complicated.
l 21 lI i
MR. DIRCKS:
Another point, too, is these aren't i
22 i i
the only three that have been looked at, to get to those three.
l 23 '
They have looked at many, and the three represent any one i
/
o g & ~u ; ; h- :t f....' ',,
- wC. '
("' ' ;u.; D
- C - v L<
' L J-b 10
. : < = :A-
- l a
25 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
In fact, I guess under the current i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
p 20 1 !
j bill that seems to be trying to come to completion, there'd be 2;
I four.
3 MR. DIRCKS:
But I think to get down to the three 4
or four, many have been looked at.
5 m
E CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
This is really angels on the pin, 3
6!
as we spend a lot of time discussing about the third repository
_n R
7 site.
n 5
8 MR. MARTIN:
I think the point from the Staff is d
9l i
i that there's nothing in the rule that would preclude you from 0h 10 l' E
doing what appears to be reasonable in the '90s, whatever that b
11 I j
may be.
d 12 MR. BICKWIT:
And as Guy pointed out, P, art 51 would h
13 l am willing to live E
l require you to do what's reasonable, and I
=
14 I l
with that response to this.
=
2 15 l y
)
C'IAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Any other?
All right, t
f 16 your third point.
Obviously a very chilling thought.
f p
17 l 3
j Seven years of ex parte.
E 18 l l
p MR. BICKWIT:
Let's deal with the first paragraph 19 first.
You'll be happy to hear that Guy and I think that 20 l
the second paragraph is easily manageable.
l 21 l
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I may be happy to hear it.
22 (Laughter.)
23 '
l MR. BICKWIT:
On the first point, there was some 24 l
[
discussion last time about just what is this construction 25
authorization going to look like, and what is going to be the.
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
21 1l nature of its enforceability, and we point out here that it is 2
not going to be enforceable in a way that a normal operating l
3i license is enforceable, and we suggest that it might be useful l
l 41 to look at Part 2 and see what the Commission contemplates as g
5 far as enforcement actions are concerned.
N i
j 6l I, don't think it's absolutely essential.
The basic a
i d
7 purpose in presenting this paragraph to the Commission is that Ej 8:
we want it clearly understood by the Commission what the limits d
d 9i on enforcement will be.
i o
i g
10 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, it's certainly true that we E
l j
11 j can stop construction?
or is it not clear?
E i
j 12 '
It is not clear that you can stop
=
13 construction.
What you can do is you can say that if construc-m i
g 14 -\\
tio n doesn' t stop'under these circumstances, you are going to Y
2 15 I apply the club of no facility license.
wz p'
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would think that we would want A
N 17 at least to be able to stop construction.
w 5
I y
18 MR. BICKWIT:
I would think you would want to, but E
I n
g 19 l it's not clear that you can under the act.
5 I
20 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Under the Atomic Energy Act?
l 2l MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
22 !
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Oh.
i 23 '
MR. MARTIN:
That's the same problem we have with the 24 j
fuel cycle facility, where until we got the Mill Tailings Act, 25,
we were unable to, for example, stop somebody from building a i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
22 l
1l uranium mill, if they wanted to.
They just couldn't operate it
\\
i 2i once they got it built.
l 3l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are saying this stems I
4 from the fact that you are not dealing with a reactor?
Is it lfw j) c- [ g e.
5 the, fact that r~
9 4
{
6l MR. BICKWIT:
You're not dealing with someone who's R
l 5
7 got a license.
R k
8!
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It isn't because it's DOE.
a j
9 We'd have the same problem if it was a private entity?
That's right.
z 5
y II COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
It's because it isn't a 3
f I2,
production utilization license under the Atomic Energy Act, I.
w g
13 I but rather a materials possession license, and since when the guy m
h 14 is constructing he doesn't have any materials to possess, why, w
i y
I3 ;
your control is it's a distant threat that you won't let him l
j 16 l possess materials.
W i
I7 i MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
I don't see that there E
18.\\
5
$L.
z i
is anything significant you can do about that at this stage.
I 3
T b
I9 g
j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It's pretty important, because R
20 even if you say you're not going to let his possess material, 4
2I l!
this will be the one facility in the country, material is going l
22 to be building up and you're going to be saying you can't 23
- possess material.
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess I'd like to
,i 25 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, you remember back when we I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
23 i
1 l were trying to -- oh, God, two years ago or more, when we were l
2 talking about various waste legislation, one of the points that 3
we made was we thought that a new class of license for permanent 4
disposal facilities would be a desirable feature in the legisla-e 5
tion.
It would then allow us to issue a construction permit, if 8
j 6;
we wanted to split into twe halves, to go that way.
R S
7l But it seems to me that it's so desirable to get this l
"l 8l chunk of rule out, that to hang it up and try to get legislation,
~J i
d 9!
I just --
i i
\\
y 10 !
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But, on the other hand, I think z
I
=
j 11l it would be appropriate, while going ahead with the rule, to still 3
y 12,
propose that we attempt to develop some legislation, and we N
I y
13 j can propose that this come to Congress.
This is a long way off
=
w 5
14 l 'when this might be there, but at that time it would be nice to Hm 2
15 i have in place some kind of mechanism we could stop construction w
m j
16 l or the Commission could stop construction if necessary.
M 17 !
As vie points out, it would be the place.
That's a lot d
I "G
18 !
of momentum.
i I
I
{
19 ;
CoMMIssIouzR HENDRIE:
It doesn't strike me as a very n
l 20l
-- you know, what you need is about one sentence in some of 21 these either in a waste bill or as a subsequent amendment to 21 waste legislation, or amendment to the Atomic Energy Act.
l 23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE: Perhaps
,"u could work with ELD to 24 ;
~'
come up with it, and in the spring we can propose it I
y b
- ; e-
']..<. u :. ud m.
s i c A& tC C ' "
25 q All right, the secbnd point.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
24 I
i jl MR. BICKWIT:
The second point, we think, can be l
2l resolved simply by specifying that the ex parte rule will apply l
nly t issues raised in the first of these two contemplated 3
hearings, only with respect to those issues that are considered 4
in the irst of those hearings, without its applying to those e
5 2n I
th at will be taken up in the later portion of the p roceeding.
8 6
I I
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, I thought part of your g
problem here that you mentioned is that the board is in existence N
9l throughout this whole period. 'Are you proposing then to define I
z j
jgl the ending of that as when the authorization is given?
E I
Yes.
In effect, what you have is the
<3 4
12 i construction authorization anounts to a partial initial decision.
z I
S 13 l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
And yoh're proposing mm y
14 ;
MR. BICKWIT:
We're proposing that that, for ex parte d
I, u!
15 l purposes, thatbe treated as a proceeding.
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
?
16,l 3*
I j7 j COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Because this is a -- we are d
E 18 licensing under a materials license regime in which the constructi.o C6 19 stage goings-on are just sort of the first part of an eventual 5
i n
i 20 l license, and because I have thought much about materials license i
t gj ;
proceedings vis-a-vis ex parte matters, how. tightly does the 22 legislation -- do the laws of the land, never mind our rules i
23 which are adjustable but the laws of the land bind us in an 74 ex parte fashion in this sort of proceeding?
25 MR. BICKWIT:
If you consider that first hearing as i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I i'
25 1
part of the proceeding to arrive at an ultimate decision on the 2i materials license, and the rule is structured that way, then 3
the laws of the land apply.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, but can't we decide 5l that the e.1 parte rule would apply only to part of the Staff and
=
j 6
the litigators or --
R 7
MR. BICKWIT:
How?
As a general proposition?
Aj 8
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, in this case.
d 9
MR. 3ICKWIT:
Yes.
Yes, you can always do that.
2 Oy 10 That is one of the issues that's before the Commission with z=
i j
11 respect to the entira ex parte.
3 p
12 !
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But in this case, since s
i j
13 l Martin's Marauders are not all that numerous a crowd, you know, m
'A i
g 14 I if you want to talk to the people who know most about what's E
^r 15 going on, why, they're going to have to be the same people who are m
l g
16 l car ry ing the Staff's case.
I i
17 !
COMM SSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, but is it absolutely w
5 l
3 18 l clear that it applies to the technical staff, or has to apply to E
l e
l9,l the technical staff?
It seems to me that it isn't.
g 5
I 20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It seems in this particular case, I 21 don't see 22 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
Well, but the Staff will be-a party I
23 to the licensing proceeding.
24 Are you suggesting we not be a party, just stand back 25 and watch?
I guess l
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
26 j
If the Staff were not a party, you would solve your ex carte problem.
2 CHAIRh'.N AHEARNE:
Here is this proposa.1 we brought 3,
4 forth, with all of the minions and heart of the Energy Department, 3
5
^^d whateve its name is at that stage, with battalions of 9
l 8
6{
1awyers and people.
Why do --
e L
-l 7l MR. BICKWIT:
Now you're confronting the whole neutral n
S 8,
Staff c neept.
n dg 9
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But this is really a rare beast, Y
6 10 l this particular proposal.
j jj l MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
But what you give up with a i
3 4
12 neutral Staff is the opportunity for the Staff to jaw the other z
5 i
d 13 i parties and arrive at some kind of informal resolution of some
=
E 14 l of these issues before you have a hearing.
N i
e i
2 15 j COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
You really gut their review 5
l 16 l authorities if you're not 3
^
\\
g' 17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I'm not sure of that.
i w
i
=
j 18 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
If they're not parties, there's P
I C
19,
no way for the Staff to step forward into the hearing proceeding x
i n
(
20 and say, "Here's what we think."
1 2]
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Why not?
Why can't the Licensing 22,
Board ask the Staff, "What do you think?"
l i
23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I think that makes them parties.
l l
Then they're taking positions.
l 25,
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
I think the Board could call the Staff s
f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
27 I'
disinterested expert' witnesses.
as 2
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Right.
3 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
But that wouldn't let the Staff a:cb/ /'U 4
positively assert, take a position that wasn't a sk36-le by the b
e 5i Board.
M I
I d
0, But if the Staff wants to get in there and argue i
8 i
S 7
for licensing --
A h
0l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, no, no, no.
If the Board d
i I
9 were directed to ask the Staff in their judgment does this meet z
t i
y 10 the requirements of the NRC's regulations.
3 5
II COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, let's ask Bill if he S
12 I wan ts to be a party.
E
=
i 2
13 l 5
l MR. DIRCKS:
You know me, I never like to be a party 5
I4 ;
w to any of this stuff.
bl 15 (Laughter.)
z j
16l I guess, you know, in the abstract, if we issue the d
i g" 17 l regulations, and the regulations are understandable, the question E
IO l 3
is do they meet the regulations.
A l
19 8
Jack, do you want to contribute?
n i
20 I i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess this is getting more and 2I i
more philosophical.
l 22 i MR. MARTIN:
I'm having a hard time visualizing how r
23 '
you could really get to the bottom of whether you met the 24 I regulations or not without a lot of dialectic on the subject, i
I l
25 '
l and pushing and shoving over a period of years, l
i I
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
L
. i..
28
]
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Sure.
MR. MARTIN:
Now whether that means you have to be a 2l 3
formal party or not, I don't know.
4 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, I don't think you've e
5
.got any way to get the results of your views in a proceeding in a M
i n
8 6
=eaningful way without the participation --
e R
3 7
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What I was asking is whether N
8 8
you could draw the line --
d I
d 9l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Between the lawyers and --
N 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
and the technical staff, 3
g 11 yes.
3 d
12 l MR. BICKWIT:
That's not clear.
If the technical Z
l 5
l p.13 i staff are going to go in and argue alongside the lawyers, then
~
~
=
[
14 l you ca'n't.
The technical staff just coming in as witnesses,%v b
l E
15 '
conceivable.
N y
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And I think you could still have A
i 17 j all that jawboninc originally, but that's a running argument.
a E
I
'o 18 !
JiR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
I think you're better I
1
{
19 l off considering those questions in the broad sense. It's a 5
l 20 I broad issue.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Could you-all construct 22 some appropriate language to at least enable us to talk to the 23 Staff after that partial initial decision and the appropriate
'24 time prior to?
And there obviously has to be a window for each 25 '
of the processes in which the ex carte applies, there has to be a 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
+ 00
- 29 I f period.
Because right now, for example, we know who the license i
2 applicant is going to be.
We know that the applicant will be 3
applying.
Yes.
S 5
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So I'd like to see when you think h!
0, the curtain comes down and when it's lifted and when it comes R
eS 7
down again.
N I
j 8l MR. BICKWIT:
Traditionally it's notice of hearing 4
9 jl 0
or request far baaring.
I don't see any reason why it should
,2 i
g 10 :
be any different here.
3 II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, you mean that if the state of 3
12 E
blank filed a notice as soon as you put out this rule they I
w 13 want a hearing, and they understand DOE is preparing an applica-3 14 l g
tion, and they want a hearing on it M
g 15 MR. BICKWIT:
No.
The request for hearing is to be
=
y 16 in response to the notice of the opportunity for hearing.
M j
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
We won't get to that stage
=
until they have filed an application for construction authorizatida P
19 '
E i
under these rules.
5 0
That's right.
If you want to apply 2I the rule a little earlier and --
22 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Len, what do you think would i
23 l!
happen up on the Hill if we came in with two lines, one of them 24 f said this establishes a license regime in which we can grant a 25 :
construction permit for these things,.and the second part said I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
30 1
that the ex parte provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act 2
would not apply to the technical staff of the Nuclear Regulatory 3
Commission for this type of licensing proceeding?
Do you think 4
we could make that fly?
g 5
MR. BICKWIT:
I don't think they'd know what you were 0
i j
6l talking about.
g 7
(Laughter.)
N j
8l I think --
d 2
9 a,
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
That sounds good.
That sounds 10 encouraging.
E II (Laughter.)
3 i
h I1 !
MR. BICKWIT:
I just think those issues are going to be a
i j
13 )
handled in different committees that are going to deal with these i
m I
5 I4 !
problems generally.
I just think committees that aren't used w
g 15 g
to considering these Administrative Procedure Act problems are
=
[
I6 going to have some trouble.
-A i
N II COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You may have covered this a=
1 5
18 l before I came in, but did you ever do anything about including 9
I "g
19 l the Commission in the decisict-making process?
n f
20 '
MR. CUNNINGHAM:
That's the question of immediate II effectiveness.
I think it's very simply done as we did in Part 22
(
72.
You just add another paragraph to 2.768 that says that 23 the construction authorization license to receive material will 24 l not be effective until the Commission has had a chance to review.
25 '
If the Commission wants that in there, we'll put it in.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
31 1l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think so.
I 2!
COMMISSIONER GILINS KY :
And wnat about the earlier 3l stage, where you're looking at the site characteri=ations?
I 4
mean in a sense the problem is defined at that point, and --
1 g
5' CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think --
8{
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We are not g. ranting an approval R
k I
CHAIRMAN.AHEARNE:
I think the Director of NRR i
j 8;
or NMSS is r6 viewing -- isn't that the way it is?
d m
9; MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
Y 10l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
And provides comments?
z I
E II MR. DIRCKS:
Right.
And there is no finding made.
y 3
[
11 There is no finding made, and I don't know whether what you are a
a 13 >
g
. talking about is the Commission should review it and give
=
'n i
=
5 I4 !
approval or something to the Staff.
U
=
1 g
15 :
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I assume he's going to y
16 l dis cus s it with us, if we're here.
A l
l II MR. DIRCKS:
I think we will discuss it, but I don't l
w E
18j; think we would want an opinion or approval or disapproval finding i
l9 l of the Commission.
g M
20 COMMIS S IONER GILINSKY:
Well, what would you be l
l 21 l sending to DOE?
22
?
MR. D I RC KS :
I think a series of comments, the way i
23 !
I view it, advising them to do this or check it here.
But it's 24 f not approving it.
They could ignore our comments, they could l
25 proceed to do whatever they wanted to do.
i j
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
32 1
I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
This is all on the site 1
characterization?
3 MR. DInCKS:
On the site characterization.
What we 4
are trying to do is not get into the mold of making that g
5 some sort of an official approval or disapproval.
N4 0l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Sounds like a good subject for
- 5 7
one or more briefings by the Staff with the DOE waste staff A9 8
5 present and participating,iif appropriate, a discussion with d
i 9:
e I
the Commission, rather than our formal turning'of the crank.
~.z c
10 m
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I agree with that, but 3_
k II I think just as long as it's understood.
3 d
12 i z
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
By those of us who are here.
m l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
3 14 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I understand what John had in E
15l r
mind was to send us a short information report, or were you just g
z
?
16 3
going to include it as a chapter in the annual report?
t 17 i d
(Laughter.)
i m
18 {i E
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
Any other questions?
9 l
19 '
3 i
Anybody?
l 20 i j
All right.
I guess we will schedule another meeting i
21 i no later than two weeks.
22 (whereupon, at 11:20 a.m.,
the meeting was i
23
adjourned.)
24j 25,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~...-
9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the
.s
- m c commission in the matter of:
COSD1ISSION MEETING Date of Proceeding:
Thursday, Dec. 11, 1980 Docket Number:
Place of Proceeding:
w w + n cr e c> n,
n.c.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.
ANN RILEY Official Reporter (Typed)
~
n 9
p I 13 o.
V*
/
.._ -......~ - -
Official Reporter (Signature)
\\