ML19352A038
| ML19352A038 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/05/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19352A039 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-44FR70408, REF-10CFR9.7, RULE-PR-60 SECY-81-048B, SECY-81-48B, NUDOCS 8102250550 | |
| Download: ML19352A038 (45) | |
Text
v n
'./D NUCIJ.AR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSICN gj
_f
..c.._.. __...
_.__...-COMMISSION MEETING l
In the.h of:
PUBLIC MEETING
(
. AFFIRMATION 81-4/ DISCUSSION SESSION l
J
..y
-:r-- - - -- ;.
z;
. r..,._
4.. f _.. _. _ ;_.--- : -- -- -- - - - - -- -
. 1 r.:.--
.__ _gr.
i s
.~..,s
-~,..,...t s.
e
..J,...
a--.DATI: February 15 ', : 198 L ;., _ p a g y,g :
1 - 43
-s r.
-a.
. m. dm. Pn 23 -. -
Ing- - - -. 7 7.- =-- ; ~ :-.; ; ; - _ :.
--I'~-~*-
.;-. =. ;__t o n,--.
. ~. - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ - -
t l
m
(
- h ~..: :.. -w.-,.
m :,. - c z ::....-
w.
T..
~'
~
2 ({
?
~
pgBOOL4 +N-6 t
- .w. ~ - - - -
~
u.s.gS,,,e _ _3 s
e 2
g
- y
\\
Q&
.,. ~
.u...w.
- 5. M MY N XG a$b
~
- S.
7 -l. w ' cl; '
. v 400 - Virgisia Ave., S.W. Wasning ten, D. C. 20024 w
~
Telachese : (202) 554-2345
{
- c.......
THIS DOCUMENT CONTA!NS 8102250 Egg P00R QUAUTY PAGES I
I
s a
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
^
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
s 4
5 AFFIRMATION 81-4/ DISCUSSION SESSION 6
7 8
PUBLIC MEETING 9
10 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 Room 1130 12 1717 H Street, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
13 Thursday, February 5, 1981 m
14 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 15 2:10'p.m.
16 PEFORE:
17 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chairman of the Commission 18 YICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner JOSEPH E. HENDRIE, Commissioner 19 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 20 STAFF PRESENT:
21 L. BICKWIT 22 M. HALSCH S. CHILK 23 K. GOLL"R J. WOLF
(
24 J. MARTIN v
g ALDetSoM REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG4NIA AVE. S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2346
4 A
DTSr* A'd'~t A
This is an -#'d * = T
===="pc of a. maattts of cha F =d =d Stanas Nacimar Eagulatser C W==1on heli on 2-5-81
~~ 7 E lin tha c===4==d = 's officas at 17U E St=nec, N. W., u= =w eerm.7
. D. C.
h anecing: was opes en public at:andanca and obserrandan.
l-
- This "?c has not beam zuvissed, enz=ac=ad,. or edi ad, amt it as7 concahz d*=e - s me.
h
-- =-- -'a t i s dwe=adad solaIT far ganazzi info==aciansk x
purposes.
As providank by 10 CEL 9.103, is is not part of -de formaI. or infazamL record of du =dm of :he mat===s discussed.
i E.,---sd -- of a=4*d - in this =ans@c da s c secessa:Aly a
reft e 'd*=1-datazminations or b=1d =**.
T No P
--dd ! or other paper may be. *11ad, wi=h. the c==4 = =d = 12 any procaeding as tha resu1= of or add =assed, cm any seme===e or a=31ammat canad-=A_ -
h**"4*
aEE87C aE Che. h as7 autho*b'*
l i
l
=
~
e e
e f
4 e
1 I
t
- -j e
S O
~.--,,,,-,--,,.va,,_m
, - - - -e.,em-,
-,,,,,-m,,-
,,m.,,,_
,v.m,,,,,,, - - _., - - -, -, - - - - - - - _ - -. - - _
2 1
239&EEDIESn 2
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The Consission meets this 3
afternoon to consider a collection of subjects.
4 First, we have a couple of affirmation items.
5 Sam.
6 MR. CHILK:
The first item is SECY-81-23. The 7
subject is page limitation on briefs filed with the Appeal I
8 Boards.
'The Commission unanimously approved a final rule 9
which has an amendment to 10 C.F.R. 2762.
It imposes a page 10 limitation on administrative appellate briefs filed with the 11 Appeal Boards.
t 12 Would you please affira your vote.
i 13 (Chorus of Ayes.)
l 14 ER. CHILK The second item is SECY-81-48, 48-A 15 and nov 48-B.
The Commission has met on this on several 16 occasions.
It seems to us that the open items are the l
17 language drafted by the general counsel and forwarded to you 18 in a memorandum.
19 CHAIRMAN AHEABNEs This is the high-level vaste 20 rule?
21 NR. CHILKs The high-level vaste rule, right, the 22 final rule on the disposal of high-level radioactive vastes 23 in geologic repositorie=, the open items being the general 24 counsel's memorandum and the language that he submitted and 25 a Commission des'raination if the final rule satisfies the ALDGISoM REPoRTh% COMPANY,INC,
s 3
~
1 criteria for the approval of the significant reglations set 2
out in the new Executive Crder.
3 CHAIBMAN AHEARNE:
We had deferred the last point, 4
the one that Karl Coller had raised to us last time, and 5
that is we needed to make a formal finding that this did 6
meet the Executive Order's policies.
7 What we had said was, and I think it was Peter who 3
pointed it out tha t we should defer doint that t 411 ve had 9
finally reached a conclusion on the rule.
It was difficult to to make a finding on that.
11 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
That is right.
12 CHAIENAN AHEABNE:
So I think that con tinues to be 13 deferred.
14 We have also a set of changes that came up last 15 night?
16 NH. CHILK4 Last ni'gh t.
i 17 CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
Craig or Karl, did you want to 18 speak briefly to that?
19 ER. COLLER:
You are speaking of 48-B7 20 CHAIRHAN AHEARNEs Yes.
f 2)
HR. GOLLER:
In most cases these represent a 22 formalization of the changes that the Commissioners had 23 indicated they wanted made provided there was sose2ric l
24 wording.
25 There are passibly two exceptions to that.
One is
)
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, fM MM
l 4
1 a change relative to page 50 which is intended to be a 2
clarification again of what the staff understood the i
l 3
Commission's wishes were, in this case clarifying further i
I 4
the Commission 's intent to require instant in situ testing 5
at depth during site characterization.
l 6
The other changes which are unresolved are the the l
7 two sets of wording, one submitted by OGC and the other by 8
ELD in two areas of the proposed rule.
9 The words that are included in.he 48-A/B SECT document are those with OGC.
Enclosure B to this are 10 11 alternate words that have been submitted by ELD.
12 I think Jim Wolf is prepared to characterize these 13 two sets of wording, the differences therein and so on.
14 CHAIBHAN AHEARNE.
Before we get to that why don't 15 ve deal with the first issue, the changes to page 50, which i
16 I believe Commissioner Bradford had some modifications that 17 he wanted to propose.
18 Is that correct, Peter?
19 CONHISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
Do you have c~opies?
20 I just would add a Section C to it.
Yes, you do ha ve it.
i 21 The only point is to make clear that the requirement for in 22 situ testing, unless exempted by NRC, applies to the other 23 sites characterized as well.
CHAIRNAN AHEARNE:
You said to only add "C".
The 24 v
25 copy I got out of your office also had changes to "A".
J ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, m
5 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Sorry.
I would further 2
modify that by saying construction authorization" rather.
3 than "a license."
That is not a license at that stage.
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is what was bothering me 5
with "A".
6 COHNISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, that is mine.
7 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
So your proposal to change "A"
8 would read?
9 COHNISSIONER BR ADFORDa
" Prior to submittal of an 10 application for a construction authorization to be issued 11 under this part the DOE shall conduct a program of site 12 characteri=ation with respect to the. site to be described in l
13 such application."
14 HR. WOLFS As far as terminology is concerned, the 15 application as a one-step licensing process throughout the 16 paper is stated to be an application for a license.
The 17 ' construction authorization is not what you applie for, but 18 the granting of a construction authorization as provided in 19 the rule is a necessary step.
20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE So a license here would 21 he ---
22 HR. WOLF 4 The license would be deferred for i
23 technical reasons.
24 CHAIRHAN AHEARNEs So you are saying the staff's 25 proposal was in error?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
6 1
HR. WOLFS The original proposal was in error 2
technically, yes.
3 (Laughter.)
4 CHAIRHAN AREARNE:
So you are saying that Peter's 5
original suggestion was really better?
6 HR. WOLF:
Yes.
7 COHHISSIONER BRADFORE:
What he is really saying 8
is that ar legal assistant is snarter than I an 9
( Laughter. )
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That is prior to the submittal 11 of an application for a license to be issued unde'_ this part?
12 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
That is right.
13 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
Jack, did you have another m
j 14 comment?
i 15 HR. WOLF:
No, that was the only comment that I 16 Janted to make there, unless you have some further questions.
17 CHAIRHAN AREARNE:
No.
18 Joe?
Ig CORRISSIONEB HE3DRIE:
I applaud the change.
20 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
Vic?
21 (No response.)
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right, agreed.
23 Now, on Part "C" you wanted to add?
24 COHHISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, an entire Part "C".
v 25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE Jack, comments on the addition?
C ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
M
7 1
HR. WOLF:
I haven't seen the addition.
2 COMMISSIONEB BR ADFORD:
Does the staff not have 3
the addition?
es 4
CHAIRHAM AHEARNE:
Did anybody give a copy to 5
Standards?
6 MR. CHILK:
Could we get some copies run off.
7 (Staff member leaves room to make copies.)
8 COEMISSIONER HENDRIE:
While they are running off 9
codies of proposed Part "C" could I go back up to Part "B"
10 and ask you all now that I read it, "a program of in situ 11 exploration and testing" and now we have the whole rest of 12 that is at depths and then two lines to explain what depth 13 seans.
What depth means is that vaste would esplaced were a 14 license to be issued under this part with respect to th e 15 geologic disposal of high-level radioactive vaste at the 16 site.
17 Tou wouldn't care to just say in situ explora tion 18 and testing at depths characteristic of those anticipated 19 for the repository?
I don't really care very much, but i
20 having had to read "B"
to get to "C"
is why I found myself 21 just feeling violated in a language sense.
22 COH3ISSIONER GILINSKYa It sounds all right to me.
23 COREISSIONER HENDRIE:
Or any equivalent i
^
24 formulation the staff would like to derive.
l
.s-25 MR. MARTIN:
I think that would fine.
If one were l
m.
i A'N REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
l
~
8 1
to put a period after " emplaced" I think that captures the 2
sense of it.
3 HR. WOLFa One additional point there on the 4
phrase "in situ exploration and testing."
Throughout the 5
rest of the part it is in situ testing only.
The 6
description of site characterization and the definition does 7
ref ar to a program exploration, but for consistency you 8
night consider striking out " exploration".at this point.
9 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The exploration is to perfectly fine with me.
As a matter of fact, it has an 11 element of clarity to it.
I suppose in some sense you could 12 regard sinking the shaft and going out on a couple of dribs 13 as part of the testing, but one of the reasons for going out
(
14 on those dribs in fact is to do a little lateral 15 exploration.
And, you know, if you suddenly find you have 16 broken through into the well water supply f or the 17 neighborhood, why it is going to be fairly significant to 18 the outcome of the proposition.
Exploration is fine with me.
19 It was the two lines that seemed to coil upon 20 themselves hopelessly that caught my eye.
21 CHAIBHAN AHEARNEs Would it be acceptable then, as 22 Jack suggested, to put a period after " emplace"?
23 COHNISSIONER HENDRIEa Any improvement would be 24 gratefully accepted.
v 25 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEa All right.
ALDER 8oN REPoRTweG COMPANY. INC,
_ __ --_mm m m r;va c~m merse:vn
r 9
1 (Documents are passed by staff member to 2
participants. )
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now to "C".
4 I would feal somewhat ill at ease in asking ycu to 5
think through that so quickly had I not gotten all of these.
6 (Laughter.)
7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIEs You come in first thing in 8
the morning so you had a chance to read it.
What about 9
those of us who run on a later schedule ?
10 (Laughter.)
11 HR. HARTINa I think this is perf ectly consistent 12 with what said in 50-140.
It is just re-emphasizing it.
13 CHAIRHAN AREARNEs Kari?
14 HR. GOLLER:
I have no problems I think with the 15 concept, but I am little concerned about the 16 cro ss-ref erencing and the repeating of the requirement here 17 that is stated elsewhere.
Couldn't you accomplish the same 18 thing by simply adding the additional words under "A"
that 19 says " site characterization at that site and alternative 20 sites" and thereby not having to.Tepeat it?
21 CHAIRHAN AHEARNEs Well, you really couldn 't.
22 HR. HARTIN:
Why not?
23 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
Because when the first 24 application comes in it is' not clear that they will have 25 finished the characterization at the other sites.
If you ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
10 1
describe it the way you just said you would be saying ther 2
would.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD I understood the staff had s
4 a separate problem elso with trying to achieve that k. n l of 5
shorthand which was a desire to keep Part 51 and Part 60 6
separate.
If we start referencing the requirement to do l
7 in situ testing at that or alternate sites here it mixes up I
8 Atomic Energy Act requirements and NEP A requirements whic 9
is whY ve went to a Section "C" that made the distla-tion 10 clear by referencing the other section.
11 COHNISSIONER HENDRIE:
I don't have any probles 12 with "C"?
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Bill, do you?
('-
14 HR. DIRCKS4 I as trying to read it.
15 (Laughter.)
l 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD I think we have asked
\\
17 enough people.
18 (Laughter.)
19 CHAIRHAN AHEARNEs I don't think that asking EDO 20 really goes beyond the appropriateness.
21 COHEISSIONER BRADFORD:
You had already asked the 22 EDO.
I was just trying to close the circle.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
All right.
24 The next iten was with respect to OGC and ELD's f
25 languages.
ALDEMSoM REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
11
^
1 HR. GOLLER:
Yes and I think Walt can suasarize it.
2 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE Well, one side and then perhaps 3
the other.
3 4
HR. WOLFa There was some lack of certainty as to 5
what exactly the Commission understood would be done to e
implement the desire to make sure that construction 7
authorization contained conditions of various degrees of a
stringency.
9 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs I think the accurate 10 description was that the Commission is all over the lot.
11 (Laughter.)
i l
12
'MR. WOLFa Be that as it may, there appears to be 13 different interpretations.
The language that was prepa ed l
l 14 by the Office of the General Counsel did seem to go more xn 15 the direction of detail than might be necessary.
[
16 The fix that EL3 came up with would sim ply say l
17 that the construction authorization would set forth some l
l
- 18 conditions that would require an actual amendment te the 19 construction authorization.
That is the only change that 20 would be made in the rule but the statement of 21 considerations would point out that there could be all sorts 22 of other license conditions that would be imposed under 23 paragraph "A" which said the construction authorization will 24 have such conditions as necessary to protect the health and 25 safety of the public.
As.oensoN nePom1NG COMPANY,INC, i
e 12 1
So all of these other things of various degraes of
^
2 formality could be covered under the rule and a simple 3
statement of considerations would be sufficient.
s 4
CHAIRHAN AHEA3NE:
Do you se's there being in 5
addition to the obvious reduction in size and inflexibility, 6
do you see any significant difference in what the licensee 7
would end up being required to do?
8 HR. WOLFa No.
It would be easier for the 9
licensing boards I think.
There is also some question as to to the use of the language in the OGC version about the 11 approval of the Consission being a somewhat ambiguous ters 12 as opposed to an amendment to the construction 13 authorization.
In view of the fact that it is ?.ied into an 14 opportunity for a hearing it boils down to the same thing.
15 So the short answer is, no, I don't think that 16 substantiv917 there is a significant difference.
17 CHAIRHAN AHEABNE:
Len?
18 MB. BICKWITs I don't see substantive 19 differences.
Our preference I guess was to put as much as 20 the Consissioners appeared to be agreed on into the rule.
21 As I understood the Commission agreement, it was that ar everything authorized in the authorization itself could be 23 changed only at the very least with notification to the 24 Commission.
25 By " Commission,".I should add, it was not intended ALDGISoM REPORTING COMPANY,INC, W8
4 13 1
to indicate that it was the Commission itself that would 2
grant these approvals.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I misunderstood that.
4 MR.3I0KWITs Well, that is certainly l
5 understandable.
It was an issue that I wanted to flag for 1
6 the Commission.
7 CONNISSIONER HENDRIE I guess I didn't understand 8
it that way.
I would have seen four classes to fit your 9
first three and then a class of items that might be I
i 10 mentioned in the construction authorization.
There might l
11 very well be references in the authorization, I don't know, i
l 12 to portions for one reason or another, say, as background 13 material or reference material on some facet of-the 14 authorization or there might be reference to application 15 material.
16 -
I certainly wouldn 't care to make a blanket 17 extension that would gather in what might turn out to be 18 substantial pieces of anIlysis in the original application 19 as material which was inviolate without notice to the 20 Commission.
21 You could hardly run the project I think without 22 sort of a daily newspaper to the Commission saying, well, we 23 have been thinking about that and we have just done this 24 integral on page 1046 a different way and here is our 60-day 25 notice on that.
No.
ALDGISoM REPoRTMG COMPANY,INC,
4 14 1
So in order to gather me into what you perceived 2
as that agreement there has to be a forth class of material.
3 HR. BICKWIT:
I guess I wasn't trying to gather
^
4 you into it.
5 (Laughter.)
8 3R. BICKWIT.
I just remember asking the question 7
"Did you have in mind a residual category of iteis that 8
would be contained in the authorization that could be 9
changed without hotice to the Commission?"
I remember 10 getting two " Noes" to that which came from the Chairman and 11 Commission Gilinsky.
Neither of you expressed yourselves on 12 that.
13 COHEISSIONER HENDRIE.
Well, I wouldn't expect you l
14 to write down things in the construction autnorization, you 15 know, there shall be chree feet between pillars, and then l
l 16 expect to have that changed without getting some l
17 notification.
l 18 On the other hand, if you say the pillar spacing l
to should be such as to maintain the integrity of the cavity, 20 and background analysis: on what this amounts to is found in 21 the application in Section 42-B, and in 42-9 there is a lot 22 of stuff that ends up with three feet and they find by l-23 subsequent analysis that it is two and a half, why it hasn't f
24 risen to my feeling you need to be notified.
25 CONHISSIONER BBADFORDs Does Len's explanation of i
[
mansou neonna cow =v. me.
l
~
15 1
wha t the word " Commission" means here gather you in then, 2
becuase he is saying this does not have to come back.
-w 3
- 53. BICKWITs I don't think it does.
4 Your position, as I understand it, is that there 5
are some things that would be referenced that wouldn't S
require notice to any element of the Commission, including 7
the staff, that no notification whatever would be acqu..ed.
8 C055ISSIONER HENDRIE:
Look, the way I read your 9
draft 32-C is that we are taking note that there nay be 10 restrictions on changes to the features of the repository 11 noted in the construction authorization and that there may 12 be three classes of such restrictions, you know, one, two 13 and three.
14-I don't read your language as saying that no 15 implication of anything in the construction authorization 16 document, and I have in particular ref erences to material in 17 the application, can be changed without notifying the agency.
18 That is, I read yours to say that the construction-19 authorization may have a variety of things mentioned in it 20- and some of these vill be restrictions and they will fall 21 into classes one, two and three.
But restrictions is not a 22 set which encompasses all of the language in the 23 construction authorization.
24 CHAIBHAN AHEARNEs I thought it did.
25 HR. BICKWITs The intention was that restrictions ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
!a 1
16
'S 1
would encompass the same set of activities that features and 2
procedures authcrized would encompass.
So that anything 3
that is authorized could not be changed except with j
4 notification to the Commission or some element of the 5
Commission.
6 COHHISSIONER HENDRIE4 But these documents have a 7
var of propagating from one set to another by virtue of the i
8 fact that if you want to phrase something in document "A",
f 9
the authorization perhaps, in a way that is no tighter than I
10 you feel is appropriate and necessary, and you say adequate 4
11 stability of the cavity shall be assured, and then rather 12 than put down three-foot centers or something, which you i
13 feel is getting excessively detailed, you say the evaluation
'"J 14 process for such stability has been reviewed by the staff 15 and has been presented in section so and so of the 16 application and is discussed in section so and so of the 17 staff evaluation report and will be used for this purpose.
13 Now, that begins to incorporate other documents in 19 a sort of half-way sense by reference and I don't want to be 20 tied all the way down through those subsidiary chains so 21 that there is a great body of linked material all of which 22 may be regarded by some to be locked now in concrete for all 23 time or until there is a formal amendment.
CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
Would those documents rise to a 24
(
25 level of what you would say is a part of what they are ALDER 0oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
17
'N 1
authorized to do?
2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, that is always a good 3
argument.
You can go out here and find a variety of point s c
4 of view.
5 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
First, let's just find ont your 6
description.
In a reasonable world would you say that is 7
what we ought to do?
8 COHHISSIONER HENDRIE I would think one would try 9
to write down in the c..tstruction permit the places that you 10 don 't want them to do anything without your approval and 11 maybe some places that you want to at least have them notice 12 there is an intermediate class in here, okay, I don't care, 13 and that other material in the permit, other language 3
14 referring to other documents wouldn't draw that in.
15 I thought that is what we were writing here, that 16 ve were saying things that we don't want changed withcut ouc l
17 approval or that we at least want notice on we are going to 18 vrite down in the authorization.
19 He is saying, no, no, that is not what it means.
20 What this means is everything in the authorization.
21 HR. BICKRITs Eve rything within the e thorization.
22 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But at the moment I am with hia 23 because I don't understand in theory why you can't write 24 what you are authorizing to only encompass those items which m
25 You are really concerned about and that is what rises to the 4
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
~
l 18
^.
1 level of you are authorized to do this.
i 2
Now, if your az,ument is tha t pragma tically, 3
practically that one has never been able to get there and 4
you doubt we could in the future, that is a good arounent.
5 is that your point?
6 CONNISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yes.
7 CONNISSIONER GIIINSKY4 There doesn 't seem to be 8
any great harm in including such a category.
9 CONNISSIONER HENDRIEs You mean a fourth 10 category.
I must say there is nothing in the language as I 11 see it that would prevent interpretation the way I read it.
12 HR. BICKWITs
,I think that is a possible reading 13 but it was not intended.
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs And I don't think the 15 transcript of the previous meeting would have led to that is conclusion.
17 COHNISSIONER HENDRIE:
It is also true that I i
i i
18 don 't have any probles and in some ways the ELD language is l
l 13 both clear as to what we mean I think and also a little more
{
l 20 flexible.
l 21 It says specifically, Peter's original paragraph, 22 that there are going to be some things that we are going to
?
23 consider as so essential to safety that we are going to 24 write down and we don't want no fooling with those until we
.v 25 have all thought about it and we have agreed on this side l
l ALDERSON REPoRTWG COMPANY. INC.
Nn6 D.C. A A 564 2346
9 19 1
and there say be some other things which don't rise to that 2
level but we would like to not have changed without being 3
notified or otherwise.
TNat doesn't seem to be a bad way to 4
describe it to me I must say.
5 It did deal with the problem I had with using just 6
Peter's paragraph by itself because I was searching for some 7
recognition that there would be items that we would be 8
interested in that wouldn't necessarily rise to, you know, 9
be absolutely locked in and amendments required to budge it.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Victor or Peter?
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa I am, as Joe says, amiable l
12 here.
13 (Laughter.)
14 CHAIRBAN AHEARNE:
Would you go with either 15 version, ELD's or ODC's?
16 COHEISSIONER GILINSKYt I think so, yes.
17 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
P e ter?
l l
W ll, I must say I 18 COHEISSIONER BR AD FORD 7
to construed this one to be consistent with having Joe's fourth 20 category in it.
I as perfectly happy with it with that 21 understanding.
I don't mind sharpening it.
It is l
22 consistent with the way I read it in the first place.
23 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
How about ELD's?
l CONNISSIONER BRADFORD4 I as happy with this one.
24 25 To me it is clearer.
ALDERSON REPo. ' TING COMPANY. INC.
L
20 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE Could you accept the ELD 's 2
version?
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDa Let's see.
Joe, would you 4
accept this version with ---
5 (Laughter.)
6 COH5ISSIONER GILINSKYa Why don't we go with that 7
version with that extra category.
8 COHNISSIONER HENDRIEs I guess for my purposes 9
either the ELD version or this one as I had interpreted it, 10 with that understanding, yes.
11 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
If we are going to go with this 12 one then I have got a couple of questions.
13 (Laughtar.)
l 14 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
Len, how would you handle a i
i 15 minor change to a major item?
You see, what you have got
{
l 16 here is you have broken out the restrictions into 17 categories.
Now, we have a major iten in one of these and 18 now you vant to make a minor change to that major item.
i 19 HR. BICKWITs I would say that is a procedure 20 falling in category three.
In other words, you could say 21 minor changes to major items fall in category three.
22 (Laughter.)
l 23 COHNISSIONER BR ADFORD:
If you phrased your majer i
24 items sufficiently well you should have a situation in which w
l 25 even minor to them would in fact come back.
That is, the t
L t
i ALDWISoH REPORTING COMPANY. INC, j
i.
21 1
major items almost by definition are goino to have a 2
generality of phrasing of the sort Joe was suggesting 3
earlier, not the two and a half to three feet but the
~
4 overall statement.
5 If you are going to tinker with something phrased 6
in' terms of sufficient to protect the integrity of the 7
repository it is ha,rd to see how you can tinker with that.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNES If you make it very general 9
then it ends up that you are slipping down the slope which
[
10 you charact'rize as leading to you can build a EWR on a BWR 11 site.
12 So what I thought you were trying to do vns back 13 that up and get to a point where you could be fairly s
14 s pe cific.
15 HR. BICKWIT:
Also, I think there are some things l
16 that are just absolutely essential as compared to nothing, 17 but you might want to make some minor tinkering as t change 18 to that very essential feature.
In that case I don't think 19 it is the Commission's sense that you want to have a 20 full-fledged adjudicatory proceeding.
21,
COEHISSIONE7 BRADF0BDs That is right.
I wasn't 22 disagreeing with what Len said which is that you might have 23 a category of minor changes to major items that would be I
category three.
I was just trying to say above and beyond 24 25 that that if it rose at.all to sort of a gray area whether ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
22 1
it was minor or not, if you had been sensible in decionating 2
the other categories you would find yourself talking about 3
changes that you really would want to have come back to the 4
Commission if it could reasonably be construed as anything 5
other than a minor or a trivial change.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, it wasn't clear to me the 7
var this was worded that if you placed items in these bins,
~
8 in a particular bin one and bin two, that if you specified 9
then enough to have them be meaningful that you would not 10 then reach the ponit where once in that bin that you would 11 be bound by these regulations and even a very minor change 12 in that would requ tre you to follow that procedure because 13 it didn't seea to me that there was any loophole.
~.
14 HB. BICKWIT:
Well, I think you can read this so 15 as to allow the Commission flexibility to put minor changes 16 to major items in category three.
That can be specified 17 mora clearly.
18 CHAIBRAN AHEARNE:
That was the reason why I was 19 ' finding the ELD language so attractive.
20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIEs You can say that in the 21 supplementary information section. 'You wouldn't say it in 22 the rule but you could say in the other piece.
23 MR. BICKWIT:
I think that is the best solution.
24 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
I would want something like 25 that.
AtosRsoN REPoRMNG CowANY.INC.
23 1
Joe, dc I have your support on that?
2 COMMiSSy0NER HENDRIE:
Sure.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEa Anybody else?
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Oh, yes.
5 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Back when we first did that 6
paragraph if you had accepted that, you know, changes that 7
are significant to safety or something like that in there.
8 I think you said, well, no, if it is this class of features S
why all of it is significant.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFOBD That is still basically my 11 v.e w, but I don't dare revisit it.
~
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now, you do not believe that it 13 is necessary then in supplementary information to indicate 14 that there is this fourth category?
15 HR. BICKWIT:
Oh, yes, I do.
16 CH AIRHAN AHEARNE:
You do believe that?
17 MR. BICKWITs Yes.
l 18 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEa So you would then write 19 something?
l 20 ER. BICKWITa Yes.
i 21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Or perhaps recast the 22 supplementary information section just a little bit to 23 suggest tha t when the rule talks about restriction those 24 are a set of things that are put in and do not constitute 25 the totality of the document regarded as the construction ALDERSON REPORTING CoWPANY,INC,
I 24 1
authorization or opera ting license.
^
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE.
Now I have a final question on 3
that which I guess is more of a glossery question.
Is there 4
somewhere that someone in the distant future would be able 5
to refer to which would tie down one way or the other what 6
"the Commission" means?
7 NH. BICKRITs No.
I think you would have to put 8
something else in Part 60 that will make clear that "the 9
Commission" does mean the Conaission only.
10 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE All right.
11 HR. BICKWITs That that language is found 12 elsewhere in the code but not in Part 60.
13 CHAIBHAN AHEARNE:
All right.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY That requires legislative 15 changes.
16 (Laughter.)
17 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Did the rules ever use the 18 language like 60 days notice to the agency, or when we talk 19 about the agency in the collective sense in our regulations i
l 20 do we always refer to it as "the Commission" without a 21 distinction?
22 HR. HALSCHs Ususally it is the Commission as the l
23 agency.
24 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
I would think at some very l
25 Nigh percentage of the time when "the Commission" is used it l
l ALDERSoN REPORTING CoE.*ANY. INC,
!a-
s s
25 1
neans the agency as a whole.
It must be a very small set of 2
occasions when "the Commission" actually means no one but 3
the Commissioners.
4 HR. HALSCH:
For example, in Part 50 in the 5
definition section it says " Commission means the Nuclear 6
Regulatory Commission or its duly authorized 7
representative.
So that is the agency as a whole.
8 HR. BICKWIT So we would suggest putting the same 9
language in Part 60.
10 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
The same language in Part 60 11 that is in Part 50.
12 All right, any other issues on that?
13 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE Well, let's see.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Joe has got an issue.
15 COHHISSIONER HENDRIE4 Wha have you done about 18 2.764D?
17 CHAIRHAN AHEABNEa Karl, you have embedded that in 18 'your redraf t.
That is the page 32.
You put the OGC 19 language ins is that correct?
t 20 ER. GOLLER:
Yes.
l 21 COHNISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, I have got some l
22 problems with that.
23
( La ug hte r. )
24 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The nature of my problem is 25 that we have a great procedural rule on how to license a s,*
ALDGISoN REPoRTMG COMPANY,INC, m
s 26 1
waste repbsitory.
You know, it is a magnificent effort and 2
runs on for many pages.
This g rand procedure comes down to 3
the point where it says well now, everything has been done
~
4 and the years.have gone by and thousands of people have 5
worked their tails off and we have had hearings right up to 6
here and the board has made an initial decision and the 7
Director of Nuclear : ;erials Safety and Safeguard has a pen 8
in hand poised above the paper.
At that point everything 9
stops and he can't let th e pen touch the paper until the 10 Commission issues an order saying that he may, but the 11 Consission can't figure out how it is going to go through 1lL ' that and we just don't have auch idea and we vill try to let 13 you know sometime.
You know, I can't see it.
O k-If we can 't see a way to come in this procedural 14 15 regulation and say how it is that we vill complete the 16 -process I am not auch encouraged tha t we have accomplished l
17 anything.
18 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
Except, Joe, we would have 19 accomplished a great deal f u laying down this path.
The 20 point that you just spoke about is many years in the 21 future.
Just as we labored nightily to get this far under l
l -
22 the guidance, support, help and pulling of.our noble staff, 23 that similarly in the future Vic and his colleagues will
,)
24 address that and get that out.
v 25 CCHEISSIONER GILINSKY:
From our base in
~_-
1 ALDERSoN REPoRTNG COMPANY,INC,
27
~s 1
2 (Laughter.)
3 COHNISSIONER HENDRIEa From the new building in 4
Californis?
5 (laughter.)
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEa Putting the facetiousness 7
aside, this is a major significant step.
There is a part 8
which we have been unable to resolve amongst the four of us 9
on how ought the Commission itself make that final to interaction.
11 We are agreed I believe that the Commissioners are 12 going to have to make that final action.
It is what are the 13 steps necessary to get there.
I don 't see a fatal flaw in 14 this document that we have to say that is one item which we 15 are going to have to do further work on.
16 COHHISSIONER BRADFORD:
Joe, you had shown me some 17 language on that which I must say I had no difficult with.
18 COBHISSIONER HE3DRIE:
Granting some unspecified 19 fractional merit to your argument, John ---
20 (Laughter.)
21 COMMISSIONER HENDRIEa
--- it would help me l
22 considerably with regard to the indigestability of this 23 business to express in here the sentiment that the
(])
24 Commission intends to provide an expeditious review of an l
25 initial decision to avoid any undue delays in the licensing l
u.osm neromea commr.yec.
l
A n
\\
i
(
i i
28
)
m 1
process or some such language as a way of at least leaning 2
the Commission in the direction of making its review and 3
preliminary decision af ter the board is through without 4
vaiting for all the appeal processees to work through 5
however many months or years those may take.
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would argue against that not 7
because I don't believe that tue then Commission ought not
's act expeditiously.
I think that the pace at which it acts 9
is going.to clearly be determined by the individuals at that 10 time.
11 Hy concern is with specifying your words as I 12 think you may be locking the system into a procedure which 13 could end up being a lengthier one than necessary by the way 14 you have described it because what we are trying to do is 15 forecast into the future what is an appropriate mechanism to 16 do that Consission involvement.
We don't yet have that 17 clear so we are using the approaches that we now see.
I 18 don't think that that is necessarily wise.
19 COMMISSIONER HENDRIEa Well, if you say only after 20 having announced that the Commission doesn' t know how it is 21 Voing to do that review, if fou say only it will be the 22 Commission's intention, however, to provide an expeditious 23 review of an initial decision, et cetera, to avoid undue 24 delay, it doesn't seem to me that you have hopelessly locked (j
25 yourself into anything.
s a
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
k 29 1
What you have done is to have been willing at this 2
time to express the intention of avoiding extended delays 3
dfter an initial decision by a board.
c 4
CHAIRHAN AHEARNEs If you will strike the word "r' view" I would probably live with it.
5 e
6 COH5ISSIONER HENDRIEa What would it be, to 7
provide an expeditious ---
8 CHAIBHAN AMEARNEs Commission decision.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs You would like to have a 10 Commission decision without a review?
11 CHAIRNAN AHEABNE Vic, two years before I came to 12 this place I wasn't f amiliar with what the legal procese can 13 do to trying to get things done effectively.
Now I am very 14 cautious,about what words I build in unless I really l
l 15 understand how it is going to be applied.
1e I know I don't understand what the right approach 17 to take in this case for reviewing this systen is.
It is i
18 going to be at least five years from row when this system is 19 going to be reviewed and probably longer.
20 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY Speaking for unborn 1
21 Commissioners.
i 22 (Laughter.)
23 COHNISSIONER GILINSKYa I think there is going to I'
24 he a lot of pressure on the Commission.
I don't see any l
f 25 problem with what Joe has put down.
l ALoaRoM REPoRUNG CoWANY, WW:,
30 1
COHNISSIONER HENDRIE How about to provide 2
expeditious action on an initial decision, et cetera, et 3
cetera, et cetera?
4 CHAIRMAN AHEABNE:
Fine.
5 COMMISSIONER HENDRIEs It is little enough.
6 Do you need the underlying sentence "The 7
Commissioner has not yet determined the specific procedures 8
for agency review of an initial decision"?
That is 9
certainly true.
10 CHAIRHAN AHEARNEa Well, it seems to be speaking 11 frankly.
12 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE I have one more problem 13 with this section and it is in the last sentence, " reflects
)
14 sentiments that the fullest opportunity for formal 15 consideration" -- nonsense.
Reflects sentiments that the 16 Commission itself should be involved in major decisions on 17 these facilities.
l 18 CHAIBHAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
Ig COHNISSIONER HENDRIE Okay?
20 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
It in fine with me.
21 All right?
22
( No response.)
23 CHAIBMAN AHEARNE:
Jack, if any of these strike 24 terroc in you just rise up.
vs is Or, Karl, if they de violence to well-rafted rule ALDUtSoM REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
31 1
and regulation.
^
2 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE Len, you are going to have 3
to find some way in this section to make clear " Commission" 4
or is the sultipurpose definition going to do here?
5
- 58. BICKWIT No, it is not intended to do here.
6
" Commission" is used here to mean the Commission.
7 COMMISSIONER GIIINSKYs Well I think that is 8
pre tty clear.
9 CORNISSIONER BRADFORD Well, you say Consission 10 itself.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, you are talking 12 about the situation after an initial decision by a licensing 13 board.
When you speak of Commission review it could hardly 14 be the rest of the organization.
15 MR. BICKWITs Part 2 doesn't have that language is thtt is in Part 50 and we vouldn 't propose to add it.
17 MR. NALSCH:
It defines " Commission" as the five l
18 members that are a quorum sitting as a body.
1g CHAIRHAN AHEARNE Fine.
l 20 Any other problems.
l 21 MR. BICKWIT:
Let me point out that we made some l
22 arbitrary judgments here about how far you wanted to extend 23 this particular procedure so that we are including l
24 amendments to the authorization as well as amendments to the 25 materials license and we are including only such amendments l
l u.osason nepor.WG CoWMY, WC,
's 32 1
where they significantly affect the health and safety of the 2
public.
3 COHHISSIONER HENDRIEs I would hope it wouldn't go 4
beyond that.
5 Ihere was something on page 3.
I don't know hov l
8 far down in here I am going to havi to go to find it.
7 CHAIRMAN AREARNEs I think that page 3 is just an 8
incorporation of what vent out in a staff requirements meno 9
of Janua ry 29th.
10 Karl, isn't that correct?
11 HR. GOLLERt Yes, that is all it is.
12 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
There was a staff requirements 13 meno following the January 26th meeting.
14 CONNISSIONER HENDRIEs Let 's see, page 20 and 21 15 on security plans.
18
- 58. GOLLERs.
All the chan24, on pages 20, 21 and 17 22 are strictly in accordance with the SECY Director's 18 letter of January 29th from Chilk to Dircks.
19 CONHISSIONER HENDRIEs It looks familiar.
We vent i
20 over this one time before.
21 CHAIRHAN AHEARNEa Yes.
On January 26th that was 22 one of the items we raised.
23 COHHTSSIONER HENDRIEs You know, if these papers 24 would get to the Consissioners' offices before 8:22 on the v
25 day of the meeting ---
ALDStSoM REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
33
^
1 CHAIRMAN AREARNE:
It would be a big help.
^'
why it would be etsier 2
COBEISSIONER HENDRIEa 3
to scan through them before meeting time.
4 (Short pause.)
5 COEHISSIONER HENDRIE:
It doesn't look like I can 6
find anything else to complain about at the moment.
7 Let's see, we have got some clean-ups coming from 8
Len.
9 MR. BICKWITs That is right.
10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I had a question and I wondered 11 whether'I could ask Jack Hartin to address the letter we 12 received today because I just wanted to clarify rose of th e 13 points raised.
I doubt whether you have had much of a 14 chance to look through it because, like you, I also received 15 it today.
It is a letter from the House Committee on 16 Science and Technology f rom Congresswoman Bouquard, the 17 Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, Research and 18 Production, and Congressman Lujan, the Ranking Minority 19 Nember.
20 Jack.
21 NE. MARTINt Well, I didn't read this that 22 closely, but there is a statement made that "We believe that 23 issuance of this rule in its present form will only serve to 24 f urther delay a final solution and significantly increase 25 costs."
, ALDERSoN REPORTING CoidPANY,INC.
--- __ _m e_mc~,vr~;u~wcvn ___ _..__ _ _ _ __ _ _ !
p 34 1
As we have discussed before, we do not believe
^
2 that.
In fact, we think that the rule in this forum is the 3
shortest var to the store and the cheapest.
It does put 4
some front-end cocts, but on the other hand we strongly 5
believe that it ensures a process that vill come to closure i
6 based on facts and not a lot of speculation when we get to l
7 the point of making the decision.
So we strongly do not 8
agree with that.
9 The second paragraph I think is primarily a to discussion of the Commission.
11 CHAIRHAN AHEABNE4 Right.
l 12 MR. HARTIN:
The last one argues that the rule is l
13 predicated on the disposal of spent fuel, which is false.
1 14 It is predicated on the disposal of any high-level vaste.
I t
15 think the technical argument presented here that spent fuel 16 is much more hazardous than reprocessed vaste and therefore 17 you need to do less for reprocessed vaste is not true in the 1
18 sense that certainly fully recycled vaste has all of the 19 same characteristics, a lot of actinides and americium.
I 20 Here I think they are also discussing primarily 21 anticipating the technical role which a lot of people knov 22 what we have been thinking.
23 So I don't see that as an argument that we haven't 24 vone through right here and fully considered.
25 CHAIBHAN AHEARNE:
Would you agree or disagree l
l I
ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
~.
Q 35 1
with their statement that the disposal of spent fuel is
^
2 central to the perceived need to fully characterize more 3
than three repository sites in meeting the NEPA requirement?
~
4 5R. MARTINa No, not at all. We were quite blind 5
to what the vaste forum was.
6 COMHISSIONER BBADFORDa By " blind" you mean it 7
didn't matter?
8 NB. MARTINS That is right.
I mean we made it to 9
go either way and the arguments are the same.
I think you 10 will find when we get to the technical role hopefully in a 11 few weeks you will find the same situation, that that is 12 quite independent of the actual waste itself.
13 CHAIRMAN AHEARNEs Co'?ld you address the first m
14 paragraph on the escond page.
15 NH. HARTIN:
Well, I am i little murky right now 1e on the details of 83-78, but my recollection is that what we 17 are proposing and what the Commission has finally settled on 18 is pretty much the same thing.
I don't see any major 19 differences here.
In fact, as I recall in 83-78 there was a 20 lot more direction as to exactly what was to be done in 21 those facilities than we are providing here certait07 22
""r direction is simply to do the work 23 sufficiently to make a reasonable comparison of sites.
24 COHNISSIONER HENDRIE Let's see, 83-78 aust have 25 been that final Udall/Dingell shakeout that worked in the ALDERSoN M. PORTING COMPANY,INC,
.. ~
a t
36 1
lass part of the session.
As I remember it there was 2
rothing in there which I think you would have read in the 3
legislation itself.
It is specifically the characterization 4
at depth for alternate sites and indeed it wasn't in there.
i 5
MR. HARTINs It picked a number of sites and l
l 6
specified some demonstration aspects for I believe using l
7 radioactive varte.
Then there was another paragraph that i
8 said or anything else the Consission vants done.
So it 9
seems to se that we come out the same place or even a little 10 less.
i 11 CHAIRNAN AHEARNEs All right.
Thank you, Jack.
12 Any other open items on this part?
I 13 (No response.)
14 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So I guess the final thing, 15 len, you will do some clean-up and, Karl, you will keep 16 abreast of that and we vill get another version.
I guess 17 then it will probably just be a formal affirmation to put l
18 out.
l 19 CORRISSIONER ERADFORD:
That would be fine with me.
20 CHAIRHAN AHEAFNE All right.
21 CORRISSIONER HENDRIE:
As the only Republican l
22 seaber of the Commission, why I feel compelled to make a 23 statement related to the letter from our good friends on
.s-.
24 Science and Technology, but that could very well come when l
25 ve do the final action.
ALDelgoN REPoRTWG COMPANY. INC.
37
~'
1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
What fora do you expect the 2
statement to be in ?
3 COHNIS' iONER HENDRIE:
Oh, just a comment on the j
4 process.
5 COHNISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's see, Len, how soon l
6 can we have that do you suppose?
7 HR. BICKWIT:
Tomorrow.
I 8
HR. GOLLER:
Will I include then the finding on -
e the Executive Order with the affirmation session next time l
10 or did you want some prelininary discussion for that.
11 COHNISSIONER HENDRIE:
Yca.
12 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
Do you feel the need for that?q 13 COHNISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don 't myself at this 14 point.
15 HR. GOLLER:
I received word only this morning, it l
16 was very informal but I have reason to believe it is 17 accurate, that the present Administration is going to revise 18 that Executiro Order substantially and will do in the very 19 near future.
20 COHEISSIONER HENDRIE:
Now you have got my I
21 curiosity.
22 (Laughter.)
23 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
Sit down, Karl.
24 (Laughter.)
25 COHNISSIONER HENDRIE:
You have probably told us ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i D
38 1
two times before.
2 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE Come up and tell us.
3 (Laughter.)
~
4 COHHISSIONER HENDRIE Outline the blasted 5
Executive Order requirements for me, will you, the Executive 6
Order which was in ' place the last time you had communication l
7 on the subject.
How about that as a characterization.
a
- 53. GOLLER:
Yes, sir, the one that was signed by 1
9 the previous Administration, by then President Carter.
10 It basically involved eight criteria against which 11 any new regulations should be tested.
l 12 These included the questions of:
r 13 Are the new-regulations needed.
A s'
14 The direct and indirect effects of the regulations 15 and whether they have been adequately considered t F
16 Whether alternative approaches and the least 17 burdensome of the acceptable alternatives have been chosen.
l 18 Whether public consents have been gonsidered and 19 an adequate response has been prepe. red to the public 20 comments.
21 That the regulation is written in plain English 22 and is understandable to those who must comply with it.
23 COMMISSIONER IENDRIE:
No wonder thav vant to
^
change it for God sakes.
It is impossible.
24 l
s-25 HR. GOLLER:
And that an estir. ate has been made of v
l l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
39 1
the new reporting burdens or recordkeeping requirements 2
necessary for compliance with the regulations.
3 The seventh criteria is that pane address and 4
telephone number of a knowledgeable agency official is 5
included in the publication of the new regulation.
6 The last, the eighth criteria, a plan for 7
evaluating the regulation after its issuance.
a CONNISSIONER HENDRIE:
Gotcha.
Memory does begin 9
to fill back in.
10 Well, I hope I am not ever cross-examined on the 11 eighth criteria with regard to some of our regulations, 12 including this one.
13 (Laughter.)
I 14 HR. GOL1ERt This Executive Order and even this 15 finding is not unrelated to the issue that the Consission i
16 was just considering before and there is some question as to 17 what extent it is applicable to the Commission.
The 18 Commission has of course taken a formal posture that it will 19 abide by this Executive Order.
20 CHAIRHAN AHEARNEs In sua I guess as far as I am 21 concerned, although there were some parts in the final 22 version that didn't quite come out the way I would have 23 preferred, I have no problem with voting to agree that we have met the requirements of that Executive Order.
24 1
l 25 COHNISSIONER BRADTORD:
Nor do I.
i ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
40 1
COHHISSIONER GILINSKY:
(Nods head. )
2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
He has nodded "Yes."
3 (Laughter.)
-s i
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So we only have the one 5
outstanding thing then; is that correct?
6 HR. CHILK I beg your pardon?
7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
We only have the one ---
i 8
HB. CHILKt We only have the new language.
9 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
All right.
Nov ve have reached 10 agreement on that new language.
Perhaps we could then vote t
11 to agree to put it out subject to of course any changes that i
12 might arise as language.
]
13 CONNISSIONER BRADFORD:
All right.
/~)
14 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
Well, wait.
Joe had wanted to i
l 15 make a statement.
16 COHEISSIONER HENDRIE4 I will make my statement l
17 now for God sakes if you do that.
This would then 18 constitute the affirmation vote?
19 NB. BICKWITs That is right.
20 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I will vote for it.
Let me 21 just say then with regard to requests and suggestions that 22 new initiatives Tre in the wind and we ought to hold this 23 proposition up, I agree very much with the point that the I
N staff has made, that Jack Martin has just made, that while 24 the procedures established here for vaste repositories do 25 t
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i
41
~5 1
front-end load the cost picture in terms of having to do a 2
lot of work on site characterization, particularly drilling 3
the shafts and getting down to depth and opening out some 4
rooms on at least three sites, that I think both in the 5
overall political situation in the broadest context and in 8
the NRC's own ability to carry the adjudicatory process i
7 though and an application is filed I think we will make back 8
all of the time and probably all of the cost of the work we 9
require here on alternative sites.
10 Because I believe that, why I am willing to go 11 forward with the rule.
12 Also, it seems to me if the national high-level 13 waste program is now under the Administration of my friends m
'v-14 to take a different turn, nonetheless the procedures in 15 pretty large measure are going to be applicable and 16 adaptable to a repository.
If the program in fact yields 17 some other kind of an animal, why then I presume we will 18 vrite a regula tion to fit that. In any case, this thing is 19 certainly amendable.
20 If in due time the Secretary of Energy lets us 21 know that we have got a procedure here which is going to be 22 rather awkward in view of the way their program is going at 23 some point in the future, why, good, out we will go with a e
24 proposed change to make reasonable adaptations.
(-
25 So I don't see that we are locking in here for all s
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
.. l -
l 6
42 1
time anything that can't be cured.
As a matter of f act, one 2
of the things we have got in it is that little peculiarity 3
about the Commission not being exactly sure what it is going l
4 to do when it gets an initial decision from the board, but 5
at least it indicated an intention to move expeditiously and i
8 I hope that guidance will be followed.
l 7
So I don't find a resson to hold up for what could l
8 very well be a year or more a thing that we have worked very 9
hard on and I think on balance is of benefit to the program i
10 to get out.
11 CHAIRMAN AHEAB'NE Vic?
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I vote for it and agree 13 with everything Joe said.
l 14 CHAIRMAN AREARNEa I certainly vote for it.
15 I guess my comments would be that I first started 18 looking at nuclear waste about four years ago this month or 17 a litt19 earlier and ended up jotting down some words which 18 ended up saying something like the Federal Government's 19 program on vaste management ought to be re-examined since it i
20 just wasn't going anywhere.
21 One of the targets I had in mird at that time was 22 the NBC, that I didn't think that its program was going 23 anywhere.
I think that we now really have got a prograa 24 that is being developed well and is soundly based.
It is 25 not tied to any particular Administration and it is not tied to any l
l ALDE4oN REPoRDNG COMPANY, INC, L
mc wnruanzmcw=menener ---. - -
43 em 1
particular Secretary of Energy or anyone else.
It is tied 2
to what on balance the Commission, the Commission in the 3
broad sense, t? 6 Sommissioners and the staff, believe to be i
4-the right way to go about trying to develop a licensed 5
repository for high-level vaste.
6 I congratulate the staff and all those people who 7
have spent so many months working very ha 1 to get this far.
8 So I an delighte3. to vote for it.
9 COMMISSIONER BR ADFORD:
Ne, too.
10
( Laugh te r. )
11 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
You said you voted for it.
12 COHNISSIONER BRADFORD4 I did, that is right.
l l
13 CHAIRHAN AHEARNE:
All right, it is affirmed.
i i
14 t'9hereupon, at 3:20 p.m.,
the public meeting 15 addsurned.)
16 17 18 19 20
/
21 i
1 23 24 V
25 u.oeRooN REPoRMNG CoWMY,INC,
1 1
o my NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings 'oefere the COMtiISSIOli !1EETI!!G
^
in the matter of:
Affirmatioa A1-4 Discussion Session - Public Meeting Date of Proceeding:
February 5, 1981 Decket tiumber:
Place of Proceeding:
Washington, D. C.
l were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript therect for the file of the Cocmission.,
l Mary c. Simons l
.~.
l Official Reporter (Typed) 1 a
^^D M
_z Official Reporter (Signature) l l
t l
t b
l l
.s s
~J
.. _.