ML20008F576
| ML20008F576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19240A177 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-81-168, SECY-81-182, SECY-81-202, NUDOCS 8104210293 | |
| Download: ML20008F576 (73) | |
Text
..
NCCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN
/%
\\
C
/f9d' COMMISSION MEETING In the Mittter cf:
DISCUSSION OF REVISED LICENSING PROCEDURES DATE: March 31, 1981 PAGzg:
1 - 70 AT:
Washington, D. C.
If R((~f/jf 9
4/>,9 h
'T
'j "%$l4ss;
/N
/
ru I- (REP 1MtT1XG ALDEIL%X L
400 Vi ginia Ave., S.W.
Washing =n, O. C.
20024 l
l k
Talachc=e: (202) 554-2345 E lr 42108
2:ar I
UNITED STATES OF N4 ERICA 2I NUCLEAR r.GULATOR'? CO?t1ISSION 3i I
4!
I a
5i h
8 6
e i
E DISCUSSION OF ?EVISED LICE'ISING PROCEDUPES 8
7 N
I 2
8l si d
9i
'A i
e 10 :
Room 1130, z
1717 H Street Northuest, II i Washington, D.C.
D i
E j2 l Tuesday, March 31, 1981 i
.4 1
E 13 !
E
'A i
I4 The Ceramission met at 3 :05 p.m., pursuant to l
j g
15 l notice, Josaph Hendrio, Chairman of the Cocmission, presiding.
E I
d I0 Commissioners Present:
i M
i h
I7 Joseph Hendric, Chairnan.
8 l
John Ahcarne, CcLnissioncr.
18 Victor Gilinsky, Co:nmissioner.
E f
Peter Bradford, Commissioner.
19
-x 5
20 "RC Staf f Present:
21 H. Shapar I
A. Rosenthal 22 l
R. Lato E. Hanrahan 23 W. Dircks 24 I
I I
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
2 1.
Present for the Office of General Counsel:
2 Leonard Dickwit, Esq.
Martin Malsch, Esq.
3 Present for the Office of the Secretarv:
4I l
Samuel Chilk e
5 0,
3 6I e
n 7I
\\
n 3
8I d
I d
9i I
I 10 m
Ui 11 l
<5 4
12 I z
s i
/
13 '
E E
14 a
D
=
i r
15 j a
E 16 l 32 y
17 5
E 18 l I
C I
19,!
.3 20 !
l 21l 22 '
i 23 '
24 25j 1
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1
-._ -- ~,,
m.4 e.
1-ve,
' 's a===c.'fd_:1a.L =2:se d p: cf a. =as*':s =f da ~:1:ad
~
Sca:ss Nuciaar las..la=ry C-
'esi = held== 31 March 1981
'=. ha C-sai:n's Officas a: 1717 I Sc=see, 3.
W., Was t _g- =,
- 3. C.
"a. :se=1=g was Open := pts' '
au-d =-ra a=d c':sarra d_t-
"his. =z=sc=1;; has=== be :rriawed, c===sc:ad, er edi:ad, a=d; i: =ay c. v- '~ '-~L M =*.
"a ::zcsc=19: is i=-
du ~ sola17 f = ss:ars.L 1:f::=a=1:=al pu= poses.
As p.o_ dad by 10 C23. 9.102, d : is _ : par: ef de f==a.; Or ' 'M :sc: d Of dacis1:=. af de =a::ars discussad.
Izp= ass 1==s =f epd d--
i= his =s:sc=17: dc ::: ecassa=*.7 reflac: fi=a.L da*=
-= d:cs er beliads.
Ne p'.= dd 7 := e.h paper =a7 be. filad vd :tt de Cws1:=. i= a=7 p=candi=g as.ha rasul= Of== add:assed. := a=7 s a:a=a==
= a_.
a== = zi=ad.
' arm 1=, azzap as de. C ws1==. a7 au:hcri:n.
l l
l I
e
3 1
_P _R O_.C E E.D..I !!. G S j
2l CIIAIR3 TAN HENDRIE:
Come to order.
3 Commissioner Bradford will join us forthwith.
4 The Corcsission meets this afternoon to continue its g
5 i amazing forward progress in the matter of addressing the 9
6) licensing delays and licensing procedures.
i te I
7j (Commissioner Bradford entered the room j
8!
at 2:06 p.m.)
- J 9;
Let me see if I can review the bidding to date, z
10 and counsel can help me through this. Since I just talked to 3
h 11 him an hour or two ago about it, why, I hope I can get it largely 3
y 12 right.
E.
1 E
13 l We have considered a number of items.
I en looking E
i 72 1
5 14 ;
primarily at page 5 of General Counsel's ".emorandum of ?! arch l
r 15,
10.
Let's see, the question about rulemaking on
- iI issues.
^
- .:=
l j
16 Ne directed the Staff to take a crack at putting
- n i
17 NUREG 0737 in rule form for consideration by the Commission.
x=
18 That's due about the middle of April.
The 13th was nentioned e
i t.
g 19 ;
at an earlier date, and I assume the Executive Director, a
20 l since it is not due today, has a free ride by saying it's on
)
21 schedule.
22 l Any comments?
?
23 31 3. DInc: S :
When you are dealing with things two or 24 three weeks away, it's on schedule.
25 CHAIR'1A'I HI'IDRIZ :
I figured that.
That's a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
.o 4
I reasonable proposition.
2 We also considered -- we are preparing to consider 3
our revisions to 10 CFR 2.714, the rule en contentions.
l 4
Oh, gee, we have a couple of prior notes on it, and 5'
the counsel's office says it is about to hava a further paper g
R j
6 on the subject to us.
R 7;
(Commissioner 3radford left the room at j
8' 2:07 p.m.)
d 2
9 I would propose then that we not chew on that at
?,
10 '
this meeting.
Hopefully we can come around to it next week.
E j
11 On financial qualifications, a possible change in m
I 12 the rule is there.
There was a paper to come back from the
=
g 13 Staff.
It has coce bach.
I have seen a couple -- at least
=
x 5
14 one, maybe two -- I guess tuo Commissioner comments on it.
9
=
2 15 I find counsel's office itself has a couple of comments, and is a=
g 16 addressing those to the Executive Legal Director, s
y 17 What I would suggest is that we not try to deal with a
=.
3 18 that at this meeting.
It seems to me those exchanges vill C
l l
19 ;
settle out, and we ought to be in a pcsition to ecme to action 5
1 20 on it next week.
i 21 COP 2iISSIO:ER AIIEAn!E:
I would note tha: if eithar 22 '
you or Peter should agree with Vic, I have agreed with him.
It 23 would require some, I think, substantial revision.
24)
CIIAIr21.u Er DRII:
I would --- I must say my l
25 inclination was to agree with vic's comments, and I think all I l
l.
1 1
l j
ALDERSON REPORTING C,OMPANY. INC.
l o
5 I
want to do is just see what the nature of this exchange is
\\
2 between the legal offices.
My guess is it will not upset the 3
direction that you and Vic are already going.
1 I
4l On the question of rulemaking on various generic I
5 issues, primarily under iEPA, you remember we had the ad hoc 0
6!
group headed by OGC which was to sort and recommend.
R
=
1 E
7 I understand they have sorted and are about to
- j 8
recommend.
Apparently looming somewhere over our heads there d"
9
~.
are several papers about to fall itpon us.
z i
9 I
5 10 '
We also have SECY 31-69, which dealt with the need E
5 II l for power question.
I think we can consider those as a group 3
i
\\
E I2,
down the line.
E a
13 '
E_
MR. SHAFAR:
There's also a paper that should be m
l 14 l reaching you momentarily on site considerations at the OL stage, E
I 15 g
and that should be issued any day.
\\
3[
16 l CHAIR 2WI HE:iDRIE:
Hopefully, we can consider this, W
1 N
I7 in one of the continuations of this meeting at an early time.
eC 3
18 :
There are questions of a better definition of the
=b g
19 ;
scope of sufficiency challenges under the policy statement n
20 on TMI of last December, 21 I would propose that those we will deal with later 22 "
on this afternoon, because I would like to go at the end of 23 the public session to a cicsed.sessien to try to straighten 24 out language in the Diablo order.
25 (Commissioner 3radford entered the rocm at 2:10 p.n.)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
6 I -
There are still, I guess, some wording differences 1
2 that it seems most useful for us to just meet together to 3
straighten out.
4i We decided at a previous meeting not to consider e
5 further on the basis that there was not -- clearly not a en j
6i Commission likely majority action possible on cross-examination, R
- 5 7;
the Prairie Island rule particularly, or for provisions to
- j 8'
reduce the quorum for Licensing Boards to one person.
d A
91 What I would like to do this afternoon is to deal E
10 '
first with the remaining, I trust not too serious, word 3
h II dif ferences between us and the Appendi:c 3 rule, which you remembe s i
3 1
12 E
we have agreed to send out for comment on a raasonably expedited
=
g 13 schedule.
=
z 5
I4 !
But the condition on that was that we agree on the w
i k
g 15 l wording.
We have some agreements to eork out.
=
j 16 After that discussion, I would like to turn to the x
.f I7 I general propositions and some thoughts in particular -- John,
=
6 18 3
you have some, and Peter has some, and Vic and I may contribute c
i b
I9 s
on an ad hoc basis, a
20,
I would hope that would lead us particularly to i
2Il getting some sense of where the Commission stands with regard 1
22 to sua sponte authorities of the Boards and the Appeal Board.
i 23 Ang e3en, 23.: _3 ny, gin 3;17 : yeu;d like to come ro i
24 a peint where we will close the meeting, go into an adjudicatory l i
25 '
session, and deal with the Diablo issue.
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAN'r. INC.
I
.o 7
I,
So that's the program I propose for us.
l 2
The Appendix 3 of Part 2 prep'osed rule draft,you have 3
just had one of the counsel's late-flying papers land in front 4
of you.
I take it -- now, let's see, I.cn, could you tell me --
5 there was a March 23rd memorandum in which you circulated some j
6l changes that Vic had proposed in the language, g
\\
4 c
7l This latest thing, the new thing on the table, I 5
j 8 [
trust, points those out as well as any other.
d 9I MR. BICKNIT:
This is designed to include all of the 2.
10 (
Gilinsky changes and all of the A'tearne changes.
They are z
=
4 IIl shown cn the draft except in the case that we regarded them as a 3
1 l
y 12 rather minor stylistic significance, or in the case of a re-
=-:
g 13 shuffling of secciens where there was no change in text.
I4 So what von have there is the order that you would u
h:
.j 15 :
put out if you accepted all the Ahearne changes and Cilinsky
=
1 j
16 l changes and had no additional changes.
=
h I7 '
CHAIRMMI IE.TDRIZ :
Since we.probably ought to pace
=
N 3
18)i through this on the same piece of paper, what do you say we c
j h
I9 take the General Counsel's latest r.d pass once through it.
3 i
n 20 l' Fair enough?
21 I think you've got a change that comes before that 22 main document starts.
I don't knew whether that gives you a 23 '
free one or not.
24 -
I think I didn't ha';e any objection to it.
25 COMMIS3IONER A3EAmiz:
I had accepted all those d
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 j
j 8
I i
I' changes.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You accepted all of this.
- Well, 3
we got a free ride from that.
i 4
Any problems with these?
I g
5; COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
8 0f CHAIPPRI HENDRIE:
Okay.
Page 2?
R l
b 7
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What is the basis for j
8 i
saying the Appendix B to Part 2 was an interim response?
Does d
i a
9'
~.
the document say so on its face?
3 10 MR. BICKWIT:
It was always, to my mind, intended E
5 II i as such.
I don't knew whether the document says so on its 3
l N
I2 l face, but I think if you look at the transcripts, you will find 5
l 9
13 !
it was assumed to be that way.
- n I4 f COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It certainly was on my part.
E 15 COff1ISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would j ust say it was E,5 I0 l adopted in response to the THI accident.
l U
I7 C01DiISSIONER GILINSKY:
I had not noticed that, but E
18 l 3
I would also prefer to drop the --
c I'
t-I9 '
g CHAIRMA'1 HENDRIE :
I guess I don't care all that much i
20l since we did not revoke 10 CFR 2.764, but suspended it, why, I 2Il l
think you could make a case that the language now in the rule 22 book is interim, but I frankly do not care.
23 John?
24,
COMMISSIONER AHEABNE:
Nell, factual accuracy --
~
25 obviously we did not say interim, so then it depends upon the i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9 1
recollection of the individual.
All I would say was that my l
2 sense was the intent was it was going to be interim, but 3
clearly if it did net say so and it was not a majority of the
/
I 4;
members that way, then --
g 5
CO!DtISSIONER GILINSKY:
It says partial responsc.
O j
6 MR. BICKWIT:
Let me say there is a footnote to R
7l 2.764 which refers to a temporary suspension of the rule.
So I
j 8
I think the record does document what the Commission had in d
i
- d 9l mind was a temporary or interim response.
35 10 CO!!MISSIONER 3RADP3RD:
Okay, it says that, the E
j ll Commission did have that in mind.
3 I
12 l CHAIR!Wi HENDRIE:
Good.
" Interim" stays.
Others 5
l 13 I on page 2?
/
=
v:
5_
14 l Page 3.
E
\\
g 15 i CO!iMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, let's see what -- I E
l j
16 l think I would drop the words between " reassignment" and 55 l
17,
" construction" in the middle of the second paragraph.
- s=
5 18 ;
CHAIR:El HENDRIE:
Since I think it is fairly clear-l P
l 19 !
cut that the fact that construc'. ion of a number of plants will n
i 20 l be finished prior to issuance, unless, of course, the Congress 21 l plunges through and does heroic things, why, I think I have 22 '
no objection to just striking the --
23 '
COFutISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm sorry, Peter, what did 24 '
vou wish to strike?
u 25 CO!DtISSIONER BRADFORD :
Just the words from "it appears i
1
_ _ _ ALDERSON REPORTING C,OMPANY. INC.
i
10 I
1!
through "not altered."
j 2I CHAIR! TAIT HENDRIE:
It just says as a direct result 3
of these reassign:nents, it appears.
I think probably J
4-
"that construction of a number of plants," right?
e 5
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Wait a minute.
No, I would U
]
6:
just drop the "it appears that" and go right from "roassignments" R
b 7;
to " construction."
A l
l 8!
CO!NISSIONER AHEARNE:
I agree with you.
d 1
y 9'
CHAIRMA:t HENDRIE:
All right.
Vic?
Irg 10 '
So ordered.
I_
II l Others?
is j
12 '
CO!eiISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm trying to runlack and 5
g 13 forth from the earlier draft to this one.
=
m 5
14 {
Let's see.
There was an earlier reference to 5
g 15 S100 million per plant.
Is that gone?
=
- [
I0 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
w N.: I7 COM'iISSIONER BPADFORD:
Good riddance.
E CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I always preferred $1 million 18 l
- n e-19 '
s a day as a nice round resonant phrase.
n 20 l CO!@iISSIONER BPADFORD:
I would prefer to say the 21l full Appendix B reviews of all operating license decisions may 22 '
no longer be necessary.
That is, I think I'm prepared to 23 adopt one or another of these alt:rnatives after ccmment, but 24 rather than commit myself right now, I would like to make that 25 decision at the point at which we are really prepared to go r
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
11 I l1 ahead.
l 2
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess I think that we have 3
now said enough places that we are going to do one or the i4j other, I thought.
l ll:
5l COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Joe has said he was optimistic N
+
i g
6 that he could get a majority and invited us to correct him if he j
g 5
7l was wrong, and I did not correct him.
l j
8l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I understand we moved ahead to d
k 9'
other subjects at that point.
z e
g 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Which means my present 1
11 i frame of mind is that I am in agreement, that I think we can, 3
y 12 but in the event that scmething between now and then should
~
g 13 '
persuade me I have been too hasty, I would just as soon not
=
=
5 14 !
make the commitment to say "may longer be" doesn' t after all 2
15 alter --
5_
f 16 CHAIRET HE'IDRIE :
I don't have any objection to it.
w 17 :
If it stayed this way, why, I would not feel that accepting a
E
{
18 that wording tied eve.gbody's vote down to the positive,anyway, I
c i
c.
I9 and the Commission will decide what die Commission will decide, m
i n
20 '
" Reviews of operating license decisions may no I
21 longer be,' is that it?
22 )
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
'3 CHAIR'1Ni HENDRIE:
Page 4.
J 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I prefer that the "will 1
l 25 !
ordinarily" in the middle of the page, just because the "may i
I ALDERSON REPORTING C_OMPANYo INC, h
12 1
issue" seems to me too tentative.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I felt that was probably I.
3l more accurate a description of what would happen.
I don't l
l 4:
think we know.
We have never done one.
i e
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
h j
6 COMIiISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, look at the top of the R
7j page.
You see "will be postponed."
The fact is, you could l
j 8) run the process in less time, you could say "could be postponed,"
d 9'
but we are taking this as the guiding schedule, and it seems to E
10 i me we ought to assume that it is not going to be kept.
z l
h 11 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I guess then --
it l
l 12 l CHAIRMXi HENDRIE: Your change was to say the license
=
r E
13 '
was --
E n
g 14 ;:
MR. BICKWIT:
"Will ordinarily" was deleted.
b E
15 j CnAIRMxt HENDRIE:
Oh, I see.
That was the deletion.
- s=
l g
16 I COMMISSIONER AHEAICIE:
We have a schedule which is w
d 17 '
sort of an expeditious schedule, so I don't think we should Y
l 5
18 say "will ordinarily," if we want to --
19 l; i-CO!CIISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's what you deleted.
n 20 l COMMISSIONER AHEAENE:
No, "will ordinarily" --
1 21 1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- is what you deleted.
I 22 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's why he said "may issue 23 '
within" --
24 CotetISSIONER AHEAICIE:
Do you want to say Schedule B 25 envisions, is based on, is predicated on, or believes that?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l i3 I
COliMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We could do that, but then 2:
you'd have to change the wording at the top, too, to say that 3
the schedule is designed to lay out the number of days that are 4;
required for the various stages of review.
I g
5 It seems to me "will ordinarily" is a pretty i
nn 3
6 reasonable statement, and would go along with the statement at K
i 2
7) the top of the page.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I won't argue any longer.
d 9i I wanted to page sure that the point was heard.
2 10 COID1ISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's all right with me, E
h 11 ;
" vill ordinarily."
m y
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I prefer "may issue," but we'll
=
i D
13 l vote for "may ordinarily" in order to -
"will ordinarily,"
g
=
14 '
"will issue ordinarily."
w
.c 15)
Other?
.=
g-16 Let's move forward to page 5.
z N
I7 '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I will stick with my language.
a=
w 18,
If you want to join them, then you go that way, but I think P
i 19 l the best we can say is that is our target.
an 20l CHAIRMAN HE*IDRII:
You would prefer the aim would be r
2I for Commission review ordinarily to be completed within?
}
I 22 }
COMMISSIDNER BRADFORD:
The original lancuace i
i 1
23 was "Ccamissicn.rev.i w would ordinarily be ccmpleted."
24 MR. BICKWIT:
Yeah.
25j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It does nou bother me in l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. lNC.
i
14 I!
this --
l 2'
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I suppose one could say 3,
something like the Commission intends to complete its reviews 4'
within 10 days.
g 5;
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Fine.
N i
j 6l CHAIRMAN KENDRIE:
Say it again.
R 7j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The Commission intends to Aj 8'
complete its reviews, and then you pick up the language.
d 9i CHAIRMAN HENDRIZ:
Other?
Y 10 ;
There's a aplendid sentence in the middle there.
z
=
11 l Lt.t's see.
4 s
Y 12 ;
"The Commission would state the reasons for its 5
i l
13 ;
further consideration of time required for a stay deciaion.
=
l 14 The Licensing Board's initial decision would be considered b
f 15 stayed, pending the Commission's" -- Ehe insert is " stay ruling"?
=
j 16 '
No, taken out.
Okay.
Good.
A U
17 Other comments?
N i
E 18 ;
s, 1
{
19 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
On 6, why does the first M
e 20l paragraph, the conclusion there, restrict the review to i
21 significant TMI-related policy issues?
22 !
Supposing somebody came in with significant safety i
23 issues that had nothing to dovith TMI?
24 MR. BICKWIT:
This was drafted as best we could to 25 reflect what we heard coming from this end of the table.
New l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAN.Y. INC.
1 15 1
obviously if that's not your concept, you can change it.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I guess he's talking to you 3
or me.
4i MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
e 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What's this, now?
Will the h
j 6
Commission stay review?
I don't remember this.
He must have R
7 meant you, Peter.
Mj 8l (Lcughter.)
d i
o; 9l I would drop the TMI-related.
Is that your sugges-2 O
I 10 tion?
Yeah, I would take it out.
z h
11 C*IAIRMAN HENDRIE:
A period after 2.789, then?
k j
12 COMMISSIONER BFADFORD:
I hadn't gone that far.
=
m j
13 was just going to drop the words "TMI-related."
=
f 14 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, " focus narrcwly on
]r 15li E
significant policy issues identified by the Commission."
Okay.
(
m j
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The policy in the sense A
i d
17 of what?
Of important?
What is the policy issue?
5 l
18 COMMISSIONER AHEAR'iE:
That sounds like the question E
{
19 ;
of the reorgani ation plan, and I think the answer is everything.
n l
20 MR. BICKNIT:
I think once you have taken --
l 21 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Something we consider 22 important?
i 23 MR. BICKWIT:
As I said, this is designed to reflect 24 ;
your concept.
If that is not your concept --
- 5 CO!1MISSIONER GILI.lSKY:
I don't think I would use 2
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
16 1l the word " policy."
2' CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
"Significant issues identified 3l by the Commission."
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's fine.
i e
5l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I wish I knew whether I was 1
~
9
]
6 improving the language by doing this.
R
{
7l Okay, page 7.
A j
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's see. On 7, tha time d
d 9
savings would oe at least the 70-day difference.
z O
1 g
10 (Laughter. )
E l
11 i COMMISSIONER AH2ARNE:
What?
f 12 li COMMISSIONZR BRADFORD:
I'm wondering -- let's see, 5
l g
13 how can you save more than that?
=
l 14,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Because he figures we
'-=
2 15 wouldn't have met the 7,0 days.
x
=
j 16 (Laughte r. )
!i 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
. John's view, with which I :.?ust x
E i
5 18 say I agree, is that the 80-day Appendix B precedure is more i
=
i H
i 19 j likely to average out to 90 and, on occasion, could go beyond a
20 l that, and is fairly unlikely to run less than that, because 21 '
less than that really presses the Appeal Board very hard under i
^
22 the present Appendix 3.
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What you're saying is that 24,
under this proposal, unless in fact somebody got a stay, the 25 additional time would always be =cro?
]'
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
17 I
CHAIRMAN KENDRIE:
Yes.
I 2
Actually it would be at least -- in practical fact, 1
3 it is at least this 79.7 day difference, because when there is a 4
plant ready to go, the Director of Reactor Regulation does 5
g not normally wait 10 days, if it's really ready to go.
n j
6 Now obviously if they are still doing inspection check-R b
7l off, checklist items out at the plant, why, then he doesn't
~
j 8 !
issue until they are done.
But if it's all ready and everything Y
9' is go and the only thing that's waiting is whether he puts 2
5 10 pen to paper, he puts it there pretty fast.
5 II However, --
i 3
Y I2 !
COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Is there any difficulty 5
i j
13 '
with inserting the word " operating license" between "NRC" and
=
2 i
g 14,
" adjudication" in the line just above " regulatory flexibility"?
E
{
15 MR. BIIRWIT:
No, I think that is useful.
i j
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Operating license?
Adjudications.
f.
N I7 '
We have said we would deal with the CP question in connection x
3 l
w 3
18 '
with a separate item.
c i
4 I9 Okay, page S.
Going once, twice.
g i
n 20 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I would like to get rid of 21 ;
the word "otherwise,"' in the fourth line, Option A, the i
1 22 '
word " appropriate" in the sixth line, the word " appropriate" i
23 '
.again in the nent-to-last line.
24 The legal feeling of those changes, I tnink, is nil.
i 25 I have a hatred of the word " appropriate."
l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, WC.
I
1 10 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
Go back and tell me 2
where we are.
3j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
On page 8, in Section 1, the I
4l fourth line "and otherwise," and the sixth linc, " appropriate,"
g 5;
and the next-to-last line " appropriate."
El 3
0' CHAIRMXi HENDRIE:
You want to take out "and other-R b
7 wise" in the fourth?
A I
a 8l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And I guess, now that I look M
d I
s 9<
at it, I would run the word " outline" together.
10 CHAIRMAN HCIDRIE:
And you want to -
"and otherwise"
=
l II l in the fourth line, "appropriatd'in the second line?
l f
I2 !
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
" Appropriate" in the sixth i
5 I
line.
=
3 14 i
COMMISSIONER AHEAMIE:
It says " option."
I m
{
15 !
CHAIRMAN HEIDRIE:
I am looking at you to see what
=
1 3[
16 l your view of his option is.
e h
I7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Although I usually prefer
=
f 18 appropriate things, but --
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, how come you're letting him 2
M i
20 )
mark up your option this way?
21 Any problems from the counsel?
Can you see 22 "otherwise" and the " appropriates" needed?
i 23 MR. BICKWIT:
No.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Struck.
25 Also " outlined" is one word.
i 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COXPMS7, DWC,
I 19 1
Page 97 2
10?
3 11?
4; COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
On 11, I guess I would he i
e 5j happier with the tone of that first paragraph if it just 9
I j
6j said that instead "the Commission shall, promptly."
It just R
l 7;
said, "The Commission will, upon receipt of the,Tppeal Board A
l j
8l decision," and I would drop the phrase in the preceding lines, 4
I z,
9l including the period, " prior to the issuance of the Licensing c
10 1 Board's initial decision."
z I
=
l IIl MR. BICKWIT:
This was designed just to pick up the S
I Y
12 l existing Appendix B, since the concept was not to change Appendix 5
l 13 i B with respect to construction permits.
14 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
These are probably changes 5
15 '
I should have made a long time ago.
j 16,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't mind if we've got the w
i 17 l right to step in at any earlier stage of the proceeding, why, 5
i t
m l
3 18 it must include the period prior to issuance of the Licensing l
E i
19 l Board's initial decision.
sM i
l l
20 l John?
l
\\
4 21 l l
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Peter, run again the changes 22 you want to make.
I i
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Drop everything between 24 l the commas, that is from " proceeding" down to " decision."
l 25 Then I would change in the next line down instead of, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 20 1
i 1l "The Commission shall promptly," I would just say, "The i
2!
Commission will."
l 3l Com1ISSIONER AHEARNE:
Out of curiosity, why do 4
you object to the "promptly"?
g 5:
CO!CIISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, because we are not 9
6!
in effect regulating ourselves, and it seems ro me the mature R
7; way to s,ay this is just to state what we will do and then do it.
s j
8{
To put in exhortative language from ourselves today to ourselves d
i d
9i tomorrow --
io l
10 ;
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There are occasions when I like z
=
i j
11!
to do that.
This is not one where I feel 7 need to defend this.
3 I
I2 Co!@1ISSIONER AHEARNE:
Did you say you also disagree 5
i a
13 >
with the last -- the addition that I picked up?
=
=
l 14 CONiISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
I take it that is in the a
E 15 previous Appendix?
j j
16 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yeah.
- d y
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Instead of, "The Commission Ec
- f 18 shall promptly," up above, it was, "The Commission will, upon c
i 19,
receipt," et cetera, et cetera.
Is that right?
g A
\\
20; CON 1ISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is there a reason why that i
i 21f change got dropped in transition?
22 MR. BICK'iIT :
No, it was just an oversight.
You mean 23 the last sentence of that paragraph?
24 CONIISSIONER BRADFORD:
hs.
25 MR. SICKWIT:
Just an oversight.
i ALDERSON REPORTRNG COMPAMW, ONC-
21 1
COMMISSIONPR BRADFORD:
No problem.
2 CHAIRMA:i HENDR.!E:
The rest of 11?
3 12?
4; COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
12 is another of those i
5' g
"shall promptlys."
e 3
6 CHAIRMAN HI2iDRIE:
We have another of those "shall R
CE 7
promptlys."
- j 8
MR. BICKWIT:
You will have to conform the bottom of d
y 9!
12 to your concept as it now understood, in that we had put z
i 10 l in the last line "a serious Three Mile Island-related safety I
3_
II issue."
3 Y
I2 !
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And I think if you just E
a 5
13 l took Three Mile Island-related accident out.
i 14 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And struck the serious safety b
15 l-
=
r issues?
E
?.2 d
I6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You could actually drop that M
h I7 whole sentence, but I take it it's in there just to give the E
18 l d
parties some guidance as to what they can expect out of all
=
8 i
19 l this.
s A
i 20 l MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
i 2Il COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
'What is the purpose -- I'm 1
22 i sorry, can we go on to page 13?
23 CHAIRMA'i IENDRIE:
Yes, I would like to do so.
24 !
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The last three lines on page 25 13, "except that no stay shall be issued 'rithout giving the B
i
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
l 22 1l affected parties an opportunity to be heard."
2' Is that a requirement?
3i MR. BICKNIT:
No, I don't believe it was.
It was a i
i 4l concept that was in Appendix B, and we decided to incorporato it; 5l as a result, I think the Commission has pretty wide latitude g
N 6
here, since they could Jaa the decision effective immediately, I
R i
R 7j period.
A l
8 8'
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Your concept is, though, if n
d
=
9i the Commission saw something initially troublesome, that we 10 !
might want to stay the decision, it would therefore stay at z
i I
E 11 !
least for the period?
8 I
d 12 {
MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
z 3
N 13 '
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Prior to giving parties a E
14 hearing, or at least a chance to file the papers, it would
-M 2
15 ;
state what the issue was and invite their coc. ment on whether w
l
=
j 16 l a stay was an order?
s y
17 MR. BICKWIT:
That's right, but I don't think it's I
x=
18 '
legally required.
P 19,
MR. ROSENTEAL:
Let me suggest it might be changed M
20 l to indicate no stay pending full consideration of the matter 21 on the merits shall be issued.
h 22 j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There would have to be some i
23 '
kind of a stay just to get the matter ---
24 MR. ROSENTHAL:
That's right, and it doas seem to me 25 whether required or not, fundamental fairness would warrant i
l I
i t
23 Il!
granting a party an opportunity to be heard before there was a 2 i stay that extended for a protracted period of time, while the 3
merits of the Licensing Board's decision were being considered.
4 On the other hand, it seems to me there is nothing 1
g 5i wrong with the Commission on an ex parte basis issuing an 0
]
6; interim stay which would --
E i
S 7
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Does it have to issue a stay, 3
j 8:
Alan?
Isn't there a stay --
d 9!
MR. ROSDITEAL:
It says stay in effect.
Well, that 's io i
g 10 l right, in a sense it's an automatic stay, until the Commission z
=
i j
11 ;
acts one way or the other.
But it does seem to me that what B
l g
12 j the Commission would readily say during this period that it has E
i d
13 i to act is that on a temporary basis we are continuing the E
l 14 j automatic stay, and we will now allow the parties to be heard e
2 15 on the question as to whether the temporary extension of this wx j
16 l stay should be continued for the duration of the review of the w
d 17 -
Licensing Board's decision.
5 E
18 !
1m. BICKWIT:
Well, you are narrowing it.
I mean I
C 1
(
19 )
initially we have been talking about stays imposed by the n
l 20 {
Commission for any purpose.
If you want to say only stays 21l that would pending full consideration on the merits, then you 22 ;
are narrowing the original concept.
I don't know if you want 23 '
to do that.
24 COMMISSIOER BRADFORD:
But you were thinking then 25 that if for some reason the Commission needed to go either beyond.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYn INC.
24 I
the 10 or 30 days, say, after the 15th or 31st day that it 2 I would have to grant a hearing?
3, MR. BICKNIT:
No, but I do have in mind that if it l
4l was going to impose any stay of any sort, pending consideration 5
g of part of it on the merits, or pending its own inquiry into an n
j 6l area that might be of some extensive period of time, that it R
=S 7
i would allow the affected parties an opportunity to be heard.
U l
N Oj COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But the difficulty, I guess d
j
~.
9I
-- and I think it's largely semantic -- is in fact the Commission 3
i h10 doesn't need to issue a stay here because the operation is l
=!
II already stayed under this option.
3 f
12 l MR. BICKWIT:
That's true, but the whole concept here 5
I l
13 is that it would.
=
z 5
I4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yeah.
b g
15 MR. BICKWIT:
That if you don't act within 20 days, i
j 16 you are going to say something.
w g'
17 CHAIRMA'i HENDRIE:
30 days.
=
If you don't act within 30 days, you are E
i 8
19{'
going to say something.
The opinion of the Commission was n
i 20 somewhat different when we apposed these kinds of concepts.
21 I (Laughter.)
i I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I await your proposition.
+
23 COW 1ISSIONER BRADFORD:
How about "except no 24 -
extended stay on the merits shall be issued without giving the 25 parties an opportunity to be heard"?
t
/NMTPdBd@
i 25 1l MR. BICKWIT:
What do you mean by stay on the merits?
I 2j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, what do you mean by 3,
stay?
4 (Laughter. )
5, MR. BICKWIT:
I have in mind that what the Commission e
E I
1 8
6!
would be doing in imposing a stay would not be to rule on the e
i
{
7l merits, but rather to take an interim decision that would say 8
8 this plant cannot operate until some analysis of the merits is N
J 9l conducted.
d I
l E
10 A stay on the merits, I think, is not what you meant.
E 5
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
l 3
l i
12 MR. BICKWIT:
How about just "no extended stay"?
Z_=
1 d
13 '
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
"No extended stay" is fine.
E E
14 l I guess I would make it " extensive," since " extended" might just w
N E
15 i be one day beyond the 10.
x I
=
j 16 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Extensive?
3
-A d
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
x=
18 In the next paragraph, how much of a production does T-E 19 i it become if the Commission should gc to the 12th day instead 1M i
20 l of the 10th?
Is it en the 10th day all we will get -- we will 1
21 i get a statement of some sort?
I 22 '
MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
~.
I 23,
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Since the makeup of the 24,
Commission has in fact changed, I would be inclined to delete i
25 that sentence.
I don't at all mind having an understanding or l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. 8NC.
26 i
i 1.
maybe even writing it down that if we were going to go a long 1
2:
time beyond that 10 or 30-day period, we would explain why, but l
I 3,
I cannot see putting out a separate decree to explain that the i
4' rule will be forthcoming three days later.
5l CHAIRMAN HENORIE:
You would delete from where to e
An 6 !
where?
R 5
7i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would just de lete this j
8 I sentence, beginning, "If the Commission does not," in the next J
- [
9' paragraph.
z h
10 l
=
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And then what do you do with the l
11 last sentence?
3 j
12,
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's see.
I think it still E
f 13 runs with the first one, doesn't it?
=
z 14 MR. BICKWIT:
The last sentence of that paragraph?
b j
15 :
I thought you wanted to delete that.
I really don't see any c
1 i
j 16 need for it.
M y
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
In that case, it's in the w=
5 18 l event that the Commission does not act timely within these i
19 ;
time periods, the initial decision will be considered -- your M
s l
l 20.
point, as I understocd, is that we don't need it.
Okay, I'll 21 delete that, too, then.
22 J CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
They are cutting up your cption, i
i' 23 vie.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And they're reinforcing mine.
t l
25 j!
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you don't mind, why, I don't.
l 1
J ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
5 27
)
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's my last.
2l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you would like to retain it, 3
Vic, why, I will vote with you and see if that will take care 4I of another one.
i j
5j (Laughter.)
e 1
3 0l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Then I'd have to have my own R
t
=
7l option.
E 0l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What have you done now, taken J
9i x
j out the --
~
i 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORO:
Taken out the part where z
E E
II we promise to behave ourselves.
3 2
12 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why don't you go on and let 5
1 13 '
me think about this one?
m I
E I4 !
CEAIRMAN HENDRII:
All right.
While Vic is thinking, E
0 15 I h
page 14?
i d
I0 Page 15?
w 17 '
16?
E b
IO !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
17?
ch I9 8
i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We are having a short relaxation.
o I
20 j
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have no changes on the I
21 j
remaining pages.
22 l CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, John, 17?
23 1g7 24,
197 25 -
20?
i l
J.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.I
i 28 I l Back to 13, how did the conference come out?
2l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I will go along with i
3 the change which seeks to --
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
"The Commission intends," in the g
5 first lino, delete from "if" in the middle of that paragraph a
4 i
g 6i on through to the end of the paragraph.
We've got a deal.
EE 7
Did we already vote this thing out?
Okay, let's T.
i j
8!
see how fast you can get it in the Federal Register, Sam.
5:00 d
d 9
o' clock?
2.
10,
MR. CHILK:
I'll try.
You make the changes and I'll z
~
Q Il get on with it.
S i
I I2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Well, bit by bit.
=
g 13 Let's see, remind me again how long this was going
=
z 5
I4 l out for?
20 -- was this a 20-day proposition or 30?
30 day.
$j 15 l All right.
30-day comment.
Okay.
=
g 16 Now give me five seconds to shuffle papers.
A N
I7 What I would like to turn to are some general points x=
6 3
18l1 of view about what it is we are attempting to achieve in the P
i I9 g
hearing process, and then after some general layouts, to see n
20 how that might reflect in terms of Commissioners' views on these 2I ;
sua sponte authorities of the Boards --
22 '
COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Do I want John's and my 23 memo?
24]
CHAIRMA'1 HENDRIE:
I think so, yeah.
l 25j COMMISSIONER - 3RADFO RD :
Go ah'ead and get it.
I'll i.
i, _
.ALDERSON. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 29 I
be right back.
2 (Commissioner Bradford lef t the room at 2 : 55 p.m.)
i 3
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, since you're still with us, i
4l
- John, 5
g COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Shouldn't we discuss our two 3
6l memos?
7lI' e
S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, that's a question -- they A
i S
8' M
were closely held, and it depends upon your wishes We could d
9f either make them available -- apparently it's going to have to
~.z 9
g 10 '
be after the meeting, rather than right now, because I don't
=
5 II l think we've got copies of any.
3 I
12 !
My thought was that if you wanted to outline the i
9 1
g 13 i thrust of your views, we would get the same sort of an approach z
I4 l from Peter, and the discussion would be on the basis cf that 15,'
0 b
layout, rather than pieces of paper.
>p jpdte.c i
I0 g
I have no objections to e 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess what I will then do d
~i M
l is, there were some typographical changes and I will make tho e
~
Pt1Pfh changes and give them to SECY%
n 20 (Inaudible.)
21 i CHAIRMAN EENDRIZ:
You will then make it available?
i L
22 l
l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I will make it available 23 I
tomorrow, if anybody is interested.
24 '
i CHAIRMAN EENDRIE:
Okay, then, I think, Sam, what we I
25 ought to do, in addition, is to have copies, as John marks'them I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
30 1'
up, available on the back table the next time the Commission l
2 meets on this A series of meetings.
3 (Commissioner Bradford returned to the 4
room at 2:58 p.m.)
i g
5l These are the big picture memos.
John raised the N
i 3
6l question about making his memo available.
He said, I think, R
7l what he would do is clean up some typos in it, so it would be Mj 8
available tomorrow, and my suggestion was it would be available d
M 9I then from SECY tomorrow or soon after, and the next time we
.z O
g 10 ;I had one of these: meetings, why, SECY could have copies.
z 1
5 4
II !
Now vours was even more --
8 N
I2 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I hadn't realized we were 5
l 13 ;
going to have a formal discussion, but --
.=
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I thought we would let them debate, g
c:
i 15 g
and you and I would judge.
=
d I6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm not sure they are l
l k
17 necessarily inconsistent.
5 i
{
18 CHAIRMAN EENDRIE:
No, they ' re not.
I must say, I c
4 I
8 l9 g
have read them, they are certainly points of -- why don't i
20 you launch the general proposition, John, and then let's hear i
2Il Peter's side?
l l
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All right.
l 23 Well, I guess it starts from the basis of trying to 24 rethink, or perhaps to think through what are the purposes of l
25 the hearing?
Why do we have them?
And I tried to outline some i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYo INC.
31 I
arguments that have been -- some reasons that might be the 2l reason for hearings, such as to satisfy the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and Administrative Procedures Act; to I
4l contribute significantly to ensuring adequate protection of I
5' the public health and safety; and to build public confidence and M
3 6
understanding in NRC licensing.
e R
R 7
Gcing through those, I conclude that the current A5 8
W process that we have does not necessarily serve the public good d
l i
9l in the way that perhaps the original draf ters of our enabling
~
o i
P 10 i J
act intended.
E l
E 11 I tried to propose then, that given the problems
g i
that we are on, which places great emphasis upon holding to d
17 l schedules and upon the Board making decisions in a timely
=
18 !
l fashion, we should also be willing to give greater deference P
19 i j
to the Boards' judgment.
3 20 And as a consequence, I think we ought to be willing 21 !
i to abide by Board decisions, particularly in many procedural 22 decisions.
.s 23 With respect to sanctions, I think at the present N
24
..)
time the sanctions are, to some extent, in the regulations and 25 the Board is able to use them, but we, I don't believe, have ALDERSON REPORTING C.OMPANY, INC.
l
34 1l urged or stressed or required the Boards to impose those sanctiono 2l and I think there are at least several sets of sanctions I am I
3' speaking about:
i 4l First, in the Appeal Board, in the OPS case, for g
5j~
example, said there should be communication via the Board when S
j 6!
the Staff does not meet its hearing responsibilities, and I R
E 7j believe, for example, the EDO should be told for each schedule
- j 8
commitment by the Staff and then any failure to meet such d
9!
commitment, because the element of the parties that' the Board,.I zo I
g 10 l think, has the weakest hold on, is the NRC Staf f.
They have E
II l more explicit sanctions available to them on the other parties,
3 i
12 E
but the control they have over the Staf f seems to be very weak, E
I3 '
E and I think at least we ought to try to make an explicit tie
=
i "A
1 5
14 and the EDO would be the effector or the person on whom that
_~=
{
15 ;
burden would rest.
=
\\
d 10 i The Applicant obviously has an incentive, and I think s
f 17 we ought to make it very clear by documenting delays of meeting 5
3 IO commitments by the Applicant, because if they do not meet j
=
19 commitments that have been established, and they have agreed n
i l
20 to, they shonld not at a later stage ccme around and complain 2I about delays in the process.
22 With respect to other parties, I think the penalties s.
23 that Tony outlined should be used.
If we focus the hearing 24 on more important issues, then that should avoid dissipation of 25 )
intervenor resources, as well as Staff resources, and I think ALDERSON REPORTING C.OMPANY, INC.
a L
35 I
I' the threat of throwing out a contention might be more realistic 2
if we do clarify the responsibility of the Boards to pursue 3
issues.
4 At the present time it is not particularly effective, j
I g
5l I think, to strike a contention and have the Board turn around e
3 6l and adopt it as a Board question.
f 5oS 7
We have spoken about interim licensing legislation 6
g I
m I
I M
8l in other fora, and those are basically the points I wanted to 0
f e
9
~.
make.
I E
I 10 g
As I said earlier today, I believe if we do not j
II address the process itself and try to get in our own minds a 3
12 i
clear picture of what role the Board process is supposed to
[
d f
13 serve and lay that out fairly explicitly, I would expect that j
3 14 '
we -- probably not all the members of this Commission -- would
'=0 15 h
be asking the Congress for full power interim legislation.
x d
Ib CHAIRWUi HENDRIE:
Peter, why don't you outline in a l
W C
17 shnilar way your general unrust?
c I
l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well,myfocuswasreallyonlyl c
b i
on the first step of what. ohn has talked about.
That is, it 2
i i
20 !
asens to me if we really want to undertake an overall review i
21 i
of the hearing process, we have to be able to agree on some kind I
22 >
of statement among ourselves as to what we expect of it.
j i
23 I think the material I circulated is probably better 24 responded to on the first go-round in writing.
That is, if each,
i i
25 of you has something you want to add, considerations I didn't J
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i
36 1
I have in, and others might want to delete some that I did, or we
/
i 2
could just talk about whether the basic statement of whether what tt hearings are all about is in the ball park.
f 3
i i
4l I really had not intended to do much more here than I
e 5
z quickly set down the type of thing that might serve as the n
3 0l charter for telling people who are familiar with the licensing R*"
7 A
process to see whether in fact these goals were being served and s
8!
n if not, why not.
J 9
~.
I feel unccmfortable dealing with a number of the
?
E' 10 j
specific proposals that John and others have made outside of I
=
5 II the context of a more comprehensive evaluation of the process.
a i
a 32 E
i That is, one may or may not agree that sua sponte review is I
g 13 '
causing a great deal of trouble, or -- the f act is that the 3
14 i changes that I would want to make to any one piece of the I
=
O 15 h
package, I would rather make with some sense of what I want
=
5 I0 the whole end result to look like.
t 7
5 As you all know, I am very much of the view that
=.
f_
0.
whatever streamlining we undertake has to go hand in hand with 8
i strengthening the ability of people who are serious about n
20 l meritorious contentions to pursue them through the process.
21 So I resist just going in and sort of taking a 12 I shark-like bite out of -- perhaps the easy target in terms of 23 i something that seems~ painful to us at the mement.
I'd 24 rather agree on the charter than send a group out to do I
I 25 I an evaluation for us of what changes were really necessary ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
j 37 1
i I !
to assure that that charter was being met.
l 2!
I would not feel especially bound by existing law, f
3 although obviously the recommended changes would have to conform
\\
i 4;
to those that we could achieve ourselves, those we would have i
i e
5i to rec:mmend new legislation on.
n" I
6!
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As I said, Peter, I think R
=
7lt that your approach is -- as you said, it is my first step, and l
l E
i g
8 I did not try to go very far in that direction.
d i
9i x
i As I finished, I endorsed the point that you make, i
~.zc i
6" 10 !
that we ought to have a clear understanding of what the role is.
z 1
=
5 II l Obviously for myself, in examining the process, I had reached B
i 12 l some tentative conclusions on some of those steps.
I wouldn't f=
h, 13 describe it as a shark bite or necessarily a streamlining, but 3
14 g
more as an attempt to make a process more rational, at least E
i h
15 ;
more rational from my point of view.
It's obviously a personal
=
16 '
i i
point of view.
A 1
C 17 N
COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
But what really needs to be c
f IO done from here, Joe -- whatever, of course, you would like to i
S i
19 do -- is to see if in fact there 'is a one or two-page statement 8
n 20 :
of the purpose of the hearing process that the four of us can 21 '
I agree on.
And if, in fact, you do that, then it seems to me i
t
\\
l 22 )
quite a lot would follow from it.
l l
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would still urge us, if we i
could, to address some of the more specific things.
For example,'!
24 l
1 I
25 I think spending a long period of time working up a policy i
i I
i I
OLDERSON REPORT 9WG COMPOMV, DNC, i
38 t
1I statement on the Boards, I would argue, should not preclude us I
1 2l giving some sort of a policy statement to the Board, such as 3
Cotter recommended, because that is more here how you should I'
4l operate within the existing regulations, i
J l
5i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't agree with you in the e
I E
e]
6l abstract.
Whether we can agree on a policy statement remains R
7 to be seen.
j 5
i t
T.3 g
8I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I guess --
l d
d 9!
COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
What I would urge, Joe, is i
i t
I 10 l if I could get something back in w riuten form by way of reaction h E
h 11 to this, then I could pull a second round together and we would f
3
[
12 l have something to talk about.
l
~
l j
13 l I don't know how much we can achieve.
We can try it.
I 2
j n
i i
14 ;
But it's like going down a list of points this afternoon.
i c
E 15 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would also like, if I could, E
f 16,
Peter, if you could respond to at least -- I tried to outline
[
g l
U 17 '
the questioned purpose of hearing, and I would appreciate any 5
I w
3 18
,l comments you want to add, because one of the problems I was 19 l having with responding to your rules that you have laid out is a
s M
i 20 i that I think there is a broader description of what is the 21 purpose of the hearing that I would like to understand.
That 22 is the philosophical basis, and then understanding that, then I i
23 can more easily address what ought to be the rule, f
i t
24 [
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I guess I would think of the f
i 25 purpose in te abstract in rule 1 here as it is stated.
I t
1
[
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
j 1
39 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
What I tried to do --
2<
and it wouldn't probably be appropriate to embed in here, but I 3
thought to describe in more detail what might be the purpose j
l l
4l and the various ways of describing it.
Some of the problems I I
i 1
I g
5i see with using those as the purpose, at least in the way the E
]
6j systems work, and then in conclusion you can distill it out, R
7j but the way you have got it phrased, at least fo r me, is j
-f8 !
distilled so far that I an not really sure what is embedded d
- [
9I there.
And if you could just jot down your comments or z
9 5
10 i pencil mark on my point, I would probably better understand 3
i 2
11 I it.
B 1
y 12 j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is not clear to me that John's
=
1 m
g 13,
purpose of hearings and your rule 1 are incompatible.
In fact, i
z 5
14 l I think some of them are.
5 2
15 ;
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Some of them may be.
John x
l j
16 I listed three different purposes, and to some extent, I guess l
(
17 '
all three of them are wrapped up in rule 1.
But there is sort w
5 18]i of an element, for example, to one of them that I wouldn't E
E y
19 l say was legitimate, and I don't think John really was, either.
A t
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, that 's right.
I was not 21 saying that that should be a reason, but I am saying that that j
l 22 '
has been given as a reason.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Furthermore, as long as the law i
24,
requires hearings, why, you have hearings even where no l
l 25 party may want a hearing.
1 I
f L
ALDERS ON REP ORTING C OMP ANY. INC.
I
40 r
I
)
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, that's what I meant when
[
i 6
2l I said it seer.ed to me the starting point ought to be outside i
3.
what the law required.
Then we ought to be able to come back i
i 4;
and say, look, this is crazy.
1 g
5 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I see.
I see.
A
]
6i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
In whatever sense it may --
R l
c i
E 7j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
One of John's purposes -- one of Nj 8
several, to contribute to significantly assuring adequate d
i c;
9 !
protection of the public health and safety --
?
10 '.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Joe, as I said, these are E
11 ;
the purposes I have seen in having our hearings described.
8 l
E 12 !
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
Yes, to be sure.
If one 3
i j
13 l focused on that, one would, I think, go probably significantly
=
x 5
14 I different directions than one would either from your No. 1 or b
{
15 John's -- parts of John's No.
3, and there is a question here --
=
g 16 I think a reasonable one -- as to where one wants to come down M
e I7 on this.
2z=
i 18 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, but I don't think w=
F i
j9 -
g there is any sentiment at the table surely for stating that the n
20 I hearings are the primary methcd of assurance in and of themselves 4 21 at least, that the public health and safety is protected.
22 'l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I wouldn't make that 23 assertion, I guess, because --- for assorted reasons, but 24 okay, that's in fact a useful point.
25l Yes, sir, please.
l 1
_j_
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l-
l 41 l
l l
I OOMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, isn't the reason for l
i 2
hearing in large part to protect private rights?
j 3
COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
In what sense do you mean that?
I i
4l CHAIRMAN RENDRIE:
Rights to what?
A hearing, or --
f i
I 5
g COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, certainly if you are 4
0l going to deny a license, then the hearing that's available --
y E
i O
E 7
i at that point the hearing means quite a lot in terms of --
S 8I a
M CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The Applicant gets to argue on l
i d
l 9i j
why you ought not to deny it.
~
o j
'O)'
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But I think it's also true E
4 II l that the hearing in a sense is to protect the rights of those 3
i 5.
I i
who are going to be affected by the facility.
I'm not sure 4
what (insuficia?. !
f 13 3
14 I E
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yeah, I'm not sure where that G
9 15 g
j leads me.
What rights precisely are those?
You know, here you i
?
16 '
B come and you're going to build this power plant next to me,
-A 17 h
and Vic tells me I've got rights in this matter.
18 l 5
i l
Now what rights do I have?
Like liberty and the H
i 19 i j
j pursuit of happiness, I assume, among others.
I 20l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You may not have those.
The 21 !
l l
only ones that you have that I don't see any point in our i
1 22 l
'ocusing on for purposes of anything we can do about it are i
23 i
l the Constitutional rights;-to the extent that you have i
24 '
i Constitutional rights in relation to a decision like that, i
t l
1 t
25 I
no recommendations or ours are likely to change it.
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I
42 j
l l
I '
As to statutory rights, if we feel they really are
}
2l working themselves out in a rational way with regard to the 3:
safe licensing of nuclear power plants, we can recommend changes; I
4 to the extent that you have rights that arise from our regula-g 5i tions, we can change that, too.
Q l
4 i
g 6
So much for rights.
R I
7l (Laughter.)
s j
8 !
CHAIRMAN HEUDRIE:
Sounds reasonable, but I don't d
9l know where it takes me.
2 i
10 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think it really is circular.
z t
,=
1 i
II l We really ought not to be trying to define what rights you have 3
y 12 I
in terms of the system that there is a certain amount of dis-E f13 satisfaction with.
a 5
I4,
What we ought to be doing is trying to define what s
2 5
]
15 we think a reasonable system would afford.
Then decisions l
l e
=
i 16 i
on the rights we would want to confer on wouLt fit in that j
t d
I7 definition.
E i
{
18 CHAIM1AN HENDRIE:
Can I get a comment from rhe i
s I9 '
s counsel's end of the table?
5 s
20 ;l l
MR. BICKWIT:
I wouldn't let the Constitution stand l
t 1
l 21l in your way.
l 22 (Laughter.)
l 23 l
You can always propose an amendment.
l 24j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Mr. Shapar?
l l
25]
MR. SHAPAR:
There aren't really any Constitutional l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
43 l
l I
rights, as long as they can get into court.
So as far as the 2l options you have there, they are almost infinite.
As to what i
3i rights they have now. It is obvious under the Atomic Energy Act, l
I 4l if they have an interest, they have a right to a hearing.
i g
5 The Administrative Procedure Act tells rou what R
l' 3'
6l rights they have there.
The right to present evidence, cross-R 7<
examination, and the right to have a decision on the record.
ot i
A i
j 8
So those are the rights they have:
a right to a d
9 hearing if they have an interest that may be affected, and 2
10 those are the rights under APA.
No right to discovery, I might E
l
=
1 i
11 j add.
B i
Y I2 l (Laughter. )
5 g
13 '
MR. BICKWIT:
But I think the point Peter was
=
i m
5 I4,l making is that it would make sense to just look at what rights c
=
i 15 j
you ought to be protecting.
Everything should be phrased in 5*
I j
16 i terms of an "ought" without regard to existing law, and then A
k I7 go on to formulate your reco:::mendations.
~=
i 6
3 II 4
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
" Rights" is the wrong word.
i
=
l h
g I9 l Private interests, I think, and that is all we talk about, 20 i persens affected.
2I MR. SEAPAR:
Yeah.
22 But we hope our process serves scme broader goal.
23 At least that's the theory under which the Commission has 24 been acting for a number of years.
25 Now whether that's true or not is something you all i
I I
i, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
44 1
may want to examine.
1 2;
CO}DiISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let =e come at it another 3
way:
4 We need to decide really whether we are prepared a
5 to undertake an overall review of this sort of the licensing n
N j
6 process.
If we are not, then it makes sense to go -- just to
-n 5,.
7, deal reactivelv with the various proposals that are coming in i
j 8'
from various places over the next four or five months, much as d
9 we did in the last licensing go-round several years ago.
~
i 10,
The choice is really between setting up some sort z=
j 11 of working group within the agency ourselves and developing a
f 12 our own proposals, which I must say I would favor, and then
=
E 13 the alternative of dealine reactively with proposed legislation
=.
x M
14 '
that's clearlv. c. oinc. to come in frem a variety of c.uarters.
h j
15 throughcut this session of Congress.
t
?
16 '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I 9uess I would say it in 3w l
.d 17 '
middle ground between those two, Peter.
g
{
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You are going cc have to set i
l 5
l 19 up a working group, anyway, and then de working group may have n
20 to deal reactively.
y 21 CO3S!ISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think we could still amo.gst
.;i 22 }
ourselves try to struggle through what we think the nearing i
i 23 process shculd acccmplish, and then give some specific direc-1 24 4 tions to the Boards and so forth.
4 1
25 l CO!!MISSIONER 3FADFORD:
You mean without undertaking i
1 I
t 1
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANT MC-
45 I
an overall --
2!
MR. ROSENTHAL:
If I may suggest one thought:
3 I would be hopeful that the first inquiry would be l
l 4 ll into whether in point of fact the hearing process contributes,
\\
i 5l to at least some extent, to the safety and the preservation e
h i
6l of environmental values.
Because if it doesn't, I have vasted R
7' almost nine years of my time, and it seems to me that it would
=S s
j 8
be in the interest of the entire process, if you will, of d
1 9:
x
~,
licensing plants, if you went up and got the statute, the z
i O
I y
10 l Atomic Energy Act, amended to eliminate the requirement of z
E 1
4 II adjudicatory hearings altogether.
a E
12 l I think that is a fundamental point, and I am hearing 5
13
=
today -- perhaps inaccurately -- some doubt, or at least question, w
I 14 l in the Commission's mind as to whether this is in the case; g
c
=
15 l
[-
l a doubt, I must say, that has been expressed over the years z
y 16 l in many other quarters, but I think that is fundamental, and I d
l k
I7 must say also that I think that question has to be answered E
l
{
18 before you address the question as to thether you are going to i
"g 19 l cut off the right of Licensing and Appeal Boards to raise n
20 safety and/or environmental issues on their own.
Because I l
2Il think that the two questions are inextricably interwoven.
I 22 '
And if, in fact, the Licensing and Appeal Boards are i
23 '
in the business of simply satisfying procedural rights of people who live close to the reactor, and it's sort of a 24 '
25 form of charade, then I would certainly agree that the Boards i
. ALDERSON REPORTING _ COMPANY, INC.
46 I;
ought to be out of the business of examining issues that are not i
2I put into context, if not out of the business of adjudicating 3j altogether.
l 4l On the other hand, if the conclusion is reacned is 5
that this adjudicatory process can make some -- and it does make S
3 6l some contribution to safety, obviously it isn't the whole ball E
l n
7i game, obviously it's not even the lion's share of it -- but A
j 8l if it's making some contribution to safety, then it would seem 0
9l to me that the answer to the sua sponte question might be c
,z i
o 1
y 10 '
entirely different.
z l
=
i 5
II l But I would like to see somebody address that B
i i
i j.
12 question.
I think the Commission is entitled to an answer to
=
1 g
13 i that.
I think the world at large is entitled to an answer to I
=
I4 l that.
And I think most particularly the people who spend their b=
n g
15,
professional careers in adjudication are entitled to that.
[
g 16,l
=
n MR. BICKWIT:
I don't agree with all of that.
I agree s
e
\\
17 with the portion that if the licensing process does not serve 5
E E
i i
g 18 the;public health and safety protection function that it's I
I e
19 i designed to serve, and it follows from that that sua sponte g
20 l authority is not valuable, it doesn't follow on the other 2I hand from the reverse conclusion that the licensing t
process does have some value, that the sua sponte --
l 22 23 MR. ROSENTHAL:
That's your view.
I have a different j t
24 view.
t 25 MR. BICKWIT:
I'm just saying one doesn't follow L
3 ALDERSON REP ORTING COMP ANYo INC.
47 1:
from the other automatically.
I did not say my view was the 2l sua sponte process was not a good one.
3 I'm just saying you can come to the conclusion i
I 4
logically that the licensing process does serve a purpose, g
5l but that the sua sponte process is not worth the candle, and I aj 6
think the Commission is missing --- I agree the Commission has R
[
7i to undertake -- I think the Commission should undertake an n
j 8!
analysis of the big picture, and should determine whether this d
I d
9l process as a whole is fulfilling its function.
i l
o g
10 But I do not think that all fixes of a lesser sort i
j 11j have to await the conclusions reached in that big picture 5
i j
12 l analysis.
g I
13 I MR. SHAPAR:
I'd like to make one point:
3
=
l l
14 l I agree with that substantially, but I think in l
i 2
15 l response to Alan, if you-all reach the conclusion that the j
5 I
j 16 !
hearing process does not contribute to health and safety, you A
i 17 would still need a tribunal to adjudicate disputes between the f
5 i
18 -
parties to the prcceeding.
U 19,
Suppose you turned down, for example, or wanted to a
20 I turn down a license application under any accepted theory 21 these days, and looking at the experience of other agencies, 22 that would have to be adjudicated.
And it involves highly 23 technical issues.
So in either event, in the real world, you 24 are going to need an adjudicator.
And as long as nuclear power 25 is controversial, you are going to have intervenors who have i
l ALDER 5QN REPORTlWG COMPAfMY, ONC,
48 1 !
disputes with the Applicant and Staff, and you need somebody 2) to decide those disputes.
So that's clear as a starting basis.
3 Then you can argue about what kind of hearing you have.
That's 4l a different question.
5 And then you can add, do the hearings serve scme R
+g 6!
other purposes?
Does this Commission excect, based on experience R
- S 7l of the hearings thus far conducted, to contribute to health s
j 8l and safety?
That's subject to empirical analysis, although 40 9
people can draw different conclusions from the evidence.
z, i
O h
10 You've got your records, you can take a look at the sua sponte
=
5 II l issues and see how much time they have taken and see what the B
l I
I2 (
results of the probing has resulted in, in terms of both man-E.
I l
13 power costs and in terms of perhaps a change position.
m i
5 I4 We have f acts on that, and it is not difficult to
+
E 15 ;
5_
analyze either, although reasonable people can disagree about 1
10 i
what the conclusion is.
M N
I7 So I would summarize this discussion by saying in t
,q 18 any event you need a tribunal, and that's where I disagree with I9 '
b g
Alan mos t strongly.
The question is, what additional purposes n
20 '
should the tribunal have, other than resolving disputes among 2I.
the parties.
22 MR. ROSENTEAL :
Let me take one second for response, 23 and that is it may or may not be, as Howard says, a necessity 24 for adjudicators, whether or not a contribution is being made 25 to safety or the environment.
I 1
ALDE3 SON REPQRTING_ COMPANY, DNC.
1 49 1
All I can say is -- and I think I speak at this point 1
2 for all of my colleagues on the Appeal Board -- that none of us 3
would remain here and spend our entire professional endeavor 4
in adjudication, if we felt that there was not a contribution 5l to the public health and safety and the environment at the end p
N 8
6 of that time.
You would have to find somebody else to do it.
e i
R 8
7i MR. LA"O:
May I make a comment?
Regarding the sua i
n i
E 8
sponte benefits, Howard says these are usually visible and it's M
dd 9
easy to determine how much time has been spent on them.
i I
j 10 One of the large benefits of the sua sponte authority z=
E 11 comes from the fact that it is often exercised right during
<m i
d 12 l the hearing process itself, during examination of witnesses N
\\
S 13 I
by the Board.
And if the Board was prohibited from going into E
j 14 areas where you have counsel standing up and saying, "Objec-2 15 !
tion, that's beyond the scope of direct testimony," the Board N
i j
16 {
would be vinable to pursue those matters and get the answers e
p 17 !
right then and there, at the time when tce witnesses are 5
i 5
present.
18l' e
So this authority is exercised in almost every hearing.
t 19 1
x I
20 ;
MR. SEAPAP.:
I don' t think that's a sua sponte pcint.
21 !
Most of us were addressing, I think, the sua sponte question as 22 ;
basically whether or not a new issue that no party has ever l
23 raised should be injected by the Board.
24,
Let me say en that, there has been a lot of confusion 25,
on this point.
It's being protrayed as "either cr."
I don't
,, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
50 I!
think anybody would say if the Board saw an issue that wasn't l
2' raised by a party, that nothing should be done about it.
And 3
what you have not discussed up to now is what the other options 4
are for dealing with issues that have not been raised by a e
5 party, but have been raised by a Board.
a j
6l I don't think anybody is arguing -- and I certainly R
\\
7 wouldn't -- that nothing should be done about an issue that sj 8l a Board sees has not been raised by a party.
d i
}
9!
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I thought that's what you were<
z 9.
g 10 i saying, weren't you, when you said drop it altogether?
Because E
j 11 j your first choice was to notify the Commission.
I 12 l MR. SHAPAR:
No, I don't think so. Because the E
l g
13 !
Board doesn't deal with it, that doesn't mean it doesn't get
=
14li m
dealt with.
Let me give you an example --
g b
i
=
g 15l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
His option was the Board z
y 16 !
would communicate to the Commission that it had come upon an W
l N
17 issue which it thought needed attention.
i N
l E
18 '
MR. SEAPAR:
For example, suppose there's no hearing I
c
{
19 l at all at the operating license stage.
This Commission relies n
l 20 on the Staff to deal with all issues relating to an OL.
21 New taking an operating license proceeding, where 22 the only issue is a shipworm infestation from Barnegat Bay l
23 '
that the Intervenor wants to litigate.
Suppose when the Board 24 ;
is reviewing that matter, it wants to raise Class 9 accidents.
25 Remember that if the shipworm issue wasn't raised, f
l l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
f 51 1l there would be no hearing at all.
Now suppose the Board does see 1
2l Class 9 problem that the ACRS and the Staff missed.
The fact 3,
the Board doesn't deal with it doesn't mean it doesn't have to 4i get dealt with.
J e
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Would you have the Board h
i
]
6l communicate with us?
R 7
MR. SHAPAR:
They could communicate with the Staff.
I j
8 If there were no hearing at all, the Staff could handle it.
They d
n; 9l could bring the Commission's attention to it, as Commissioner I
10,
Ahearne has suggested.
The Board could request the Staff to look z
=
j 11 at it, send a copy to the Commission, the Commission could y
12 )
monitor the Staff's performance.
But the question is, because E
{
{
g 13 i the Board sees an issue that the parties haven't raised, does
=
i h
14 the Board have to decide, or are there other mechanisms within E
l 2
15 i the Commission for dealing with a legitimately-raised issue, E
l j
16 l even though it hasn't been raised by a party?
And I think i
17 that's the basic question, and it's not "either or."
=
I 5
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
John, what did you mean i
E 19;l g
when you said either or?
E i
20 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What I meant was as far as l
i 21 i the hearing was concerned, it would be dropped altogether.
{
I i
22 ;
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It would not in any way be i
23 handled in the hearing?
[
l i
24 f COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That was the first option.
f l
25,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You don't give the
[
d i
a b
1
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC..
52 1l Commission the option of dealing with it?
2I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That doesn't preclude it being 3i sent to the Staff or somewhere else.
4l MR. SHAPAR:
In fact, the Commission could monitor i
g 5l how the Staff could handle that issue.
They could be monitored N
1 j
6l by the Board, the same as if there were no hearing at all, E
i 7,
because the parties haven't raised the issue.
l
~
j 8
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As I tried to outline in my d
9 9 i introduction, what I was trying to do is at least sketch out 2
10 ;
some of the areas of concern and then try to outline what I z
=
i j IIl felt the Commission had to address, w hich does underlie what 8
i j
12 l is the role of the hearing process.
=
i m
g 13 MR. DIRCKS :
And what you meant to see in the hearing
=
5 I4 ';
is the perceived need for the hearing, the perceived need to do m
2 j
15 :
another re/ icv.
t i
E I6 '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But I think Alan's point is s
f I7-a very good one; that there ought to be some review -- and I M
l
}
18 l guess I don't know how difficult that is.
Howard says in some P
i 19 cases it is very easy.
I would guess it's a lot more difficult g
n 20 !
than that.
I 2I !
MR. SHAPAR:
It would only be a starting point, it 22 wouldn't be conclusive.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
I think also that Nuclear i
24 Reactor Regulation has changed, and there are shifting periods 25l of time, and it just seems appropriate for us to try to l
e ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAMYe INC,
53 1
examine what is the role for the future.
i 2
MR. BICKWIT:
I agree, but the threshold questio.n f
i 3
we have is to what extent do you hold up on other possible 4i remedies while you are looking at that.
s 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
On some of the issues I think I
l 3
6 we can go forward.
R 7;
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's perfectly reasonable and
~
j 8'
proper --
I i
d I
- [
9l CO!C1ISSIONER AHEARNE:
Can I say one other thing, E
10 though?
I have raised a lot of questions and concerns.
I z:
1 j
11 l didn' t -- I don't believe and I did not intend to indicate that 8
I 12 I felt that all of the hearings that have occurred over many 1,
g 13 years have been a waste of time and not of significant help.
=
l 14 I am trying to say in examining this stage the u
E i
g 15 ;
direction that things I felt have been coming, and some primary 3
l g
16 actions we ought to examine and take.
But we have gone through s
d 17,
the development of nuclear power in this country over a period of i
3
{
18 some 25 years, and a large part of that development -- and one
=
19 !
can argue about the. success or f ailure, but as Commissioner M
20i Bradford has pointed out, we do have at the present time the i
2I largest number of reactors operating, and an equal number 22 being built, and that is to a large extent due to the f act that l
22 I a process was put in place that did enable construction permits 24 and licensing permits to get issued in such a way that all of the 25 participants, although in many cases disturbed by the results, I
J ALDERSON. REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
J s4 1i still the disturbance never rose to the level where the people l
2! who set up the process -- the Congress -- felt that it was not 3
going right.
i 4l So I think the hearing process did serve a very I
g 5;
valuable, useful and, I think, publicly rewarding function, and 9
I j
6l it might not be appropriate to modify it as I have proposed.
E i
5 7l But I think we ought to examine it, s
I j
8i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
As I was going to say, it seems to d
[
9l me perfectly reasonable to try to take a broad look at it and z
O I
y 10 !
try to see if we could in fact agree on a general statement of
_E j
11 j the purpose of hearings in our overall regulatory activity.
3 y
12 '
At the same time we are also going to have to deal with bits
=
h 13 '
and pieces, in part because they are thrust upon us; in part
=
z g
14 i because car needs to establish how we are going to deal with b=
i 15 g
Staff redeployments and schedules down line just means that we l
=.
16 i
g need to try to see how we are going to arrange our affairs A
d 17 for the next -- for the near term.
Ee 5
18 One of the problems always with a broad look is 5
l 19 l that it tends to stretch out in time, which is a characteristic 5
7 20l you can see in such diverse activities as generic treatment 21 of safety issues.
y 22 So I propose that we try to go in both directions 23 simultaneously.
24 I suppose what one normally does from the Chair is 25,
to dole out the drafting task some place else, lest it come ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAMY. INC,
33 l.
to roost in one's own suite.
1 2I (Laughter. )
l l
3l I think I will pass this one to the counsel's office l
4 and say from the front ends of two documents in hand, why don't s
5 you talk to people and try something?
2 g
6; I don't suggest that the two statements try to be R
i 7
melded, Peter, because I am not sure that they are quite written i
o 8
the same way, so that that is a possibility, or ought to be d
I 9i attempted, out using them as a general basis.
E 10 I COMMISSIONER FRACFORD:
Just as a countersuggestion, 3_
5 II i since I didn't really th.'.nk of the one I artie, ated before 3
I I2 as being anything other than an initial process, let me try
)
j 13 '
one more whack at that.
And I will do what you were suggesting
=
x 5
I4 to the General Counsel, which is to gather thoughts from each t
_j 15 of you.
I would just as soon refine it one more round.
i g
16 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In fact, it would be more j
s N
I7 helpful.
I doubt that the counsel would feel any ense of t
5 I3 i being passed cver by that.
E i
19 ;
Now I think I will continue to have to draw us a
l 20 together on consideration of elements of the process, which we 2I will very likely treat again in a more general and coordinated 8
l 22 j way.
Just because, as I say, I think we have to do both things togeuher, boch do it piecemeal and try to look at the general l
23 l
24
- picturg, l
t 25 One of the things that I have particularly in mind is i
i I
/
L ALDERS _QN REPORTING COMP ANY, INC.
I
56 l
1 that I would like to see next week whether we can begin to i
2l coalesce or render a policy statement along the lines of the 3
Cotter draft or the most recent General Counsel's draft,'shich 4
l' includes comments from people, and there is a question mark in i
g 5;
that draft.
N j
6i It says, well, do you want to say anything, for R=S 7,
instance, about sua sponte authorities?
And it seems to me l
~
j 8'
that there are in f act a whole range of things that one might J
9 say between saying nothing and I suppose the other extreme 2
10 l would be to say, you know, we abolish all such propositions z=
i 5
Il forever and henceforth.
3 Y
I2 But there are a whole range of things in there.
E l
a r
13 5
Among other things that I have in mind is, if as I suspect,
=
z 5
14 there may not be -- there is not a najority of the Commission t
j 15 who would feel inclined to work toward some adjustment of the i
E I
j 16 l direction so the Commission --- there may nevertheless be a x
N I7 consensus that it would not be unreasonable to at least reiterate x
=
E 18 l
some of the language that has gone with the present authority 19 l
g in the past, because it is not clear to me that --
n i
20 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What do we know at this point i
21 of the effects of sua sponte authority or not exercising it?
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Occasionally you find Boards 1.
-k who seem to take very enthusiastically the sua sponte powers, 44 24 l and will do things like saying, w-sil, the Appeal Board told us 25 to take unresolved safety issues very seriously, and here in this 3
3 CMBY3T%Y#duMEFEORTING COMPANW, nNC.
I 57 1,
spent fuel proceeding, we want to know, although no party is the f
\\
2 least interested in it, what about every unresolved safety issue 3j with regard to this spent fuel pool reracking?
I 4;
And, you know, I don't know the merits of the l
1 i
i 5j proposition, and maybe it was a fair proposition for the Board g
6l to raise, but maybe it wasn't.
And, you know, I don ' t think R
i 7
the intent was that the Boards just go into a hearing and then s
l j
8l cast as broad a net as they can throw to see if they can find l
d 9l anything to prolong a discussion about it.
z O
i g
10 !
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is that a real example?
z E
I y IIl CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
3 I
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Howard, you were talking
=
l 13 l-about having empirical evidence of how all this functioned.
Is 3=
z 5
14 there something you could say about how this sua sponte authority
{
15 has been exercised, and what effect that has had on hearings?
=
g 16 MR. SHAPAR:
I think the fairest thing I can do is e
17 ask the Staff to go back and take a look at examples in the past x
36 3
18 where the sua sponte authority was used in coming up with new i
i-r 19 l
M issues, and ask them three things:
g 20 l Ask them to identify the issues ; to give me an 21 estimate of the manpower that it took to resolve it; and to 22,
take a look at what the result was af ter the issue was pursued.
23 I don't think you have the time or the patience to t
l 24 listen to all of them.
Yhe best I can do is give you one or i
1 25 two examples, to give you the flavor.
j I
1
.ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY INC.
2
l 58 q
Ilt COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Why not give us the paper?
l 2'
MR. SHAPAR:
It's in pretty rough shape.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could you give us an idea i
I 4
on how frequently this is used and what portion of the hearing y
5 ;i is taken up with these sorts of issues?
e i
]
6l MR. DIRCKS:
Not only hearing; I think'you have I
R 7
some estimates and they are on the manpowe*
f 2
i f
A 8j MR. SHAPAR:
Let me give you one or two examples.
f d
l
[
9 Let me be as dispassionate as possible. Let me give you an exampid E
I 10 where:the Board did change something, and wh'ere nothing sas :at E
5 II l least visible at the end of the probing, and I'll give you the t
B 1
\\
a f
12 ;
estimate very quickly-f
=
i i
g 13 '
St. Lucie 2, af ter an effective CP was issued, the
=
'A
\\
$.I4 '
Appeal Board held further issues that are sua sponte issues xj 15 l -- hearing of sua sponte issues on station blackout.
This z
I i
I6 ;
re, quired seven manweeks for one week of hearing; eight manweeks A
h.
I7 of attorneys' time for prehearing matters; and eight weeks of z
{
18 '
technical time spent over a year hearing.
Total exceeded a i
c b
I' half manyear.
i M
20 l This is a case where change was made, and I think l
21j l
ig.s the only one we identified.
The CP was amended to 22 !
require station blackout to be part of the design.
1 23 Now I'll give you an example on the other side.
24j Lacrosse. There was a spent fuel pool proceeding.-
The Board i
raised the question of the need for power for three years.
l 25 0
1 I
A
_ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY _, INC. _
i
l 59 1
The hearing was held on this issue for three days, and the 2'
appeals were taken both before and after the matter was litigatedo 3l No party had raised this issue.
i 4l In total, the Staf f spent 1000 staf fhours on this I
5, issue.
b
\\
j 6!
In addition, the Board raised 23 questions that R
7l were. answered by affidavit.
The Staff spent approximately 100
~
j 8l staff hours on these questions, d
9!
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board approved i
1 5
10 l the spent fuel pool modification and found a three-year need z
l
=
1 j
11 l for power.
No license conditions were required.
5 j
12 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
How in the world could the l
E I
j 13 '
Staff spend 1000 hours0.0116 days <br />0.278 hours <br />0.00165 weeks <br />3.805e-4 months <br /> over the need for power?
I g
14,
MR. SHAPAR:
You're asking for a breakdown and I'll b
i
=c 15 :
have to provide you with one.
x=
j 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, no, that's going to l
2 j
i 17 '
take hours, too, but that seems to me to be --
w E
I w
18.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would tnink you would
=
I l
19 want the Boards, though, to respond.
l 5
l 20 !
MR. ROSEMTHAL:
Any process is subject to abuse, and t
l 21 I don't know whether these particular instances represented an l
22 abuse or not.
There is an old saying about throwing the babies I
l 23 out with the bath water.
l 24 I would also suggest that the standard that Mcward l
25,
is employing of whether a change was effected is not the proper l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
60 1
standard at all.
I don't think it hinges upon that.
l 2
I The Appeal Board, as you know, is presently engaged 3i in the consideration of the turbine missile situation in the 4
context of the North Anna Plant, which has, as I think you also 5 l1 know, a very bad turbine orientation.
g 9
1 j
6 I Now I don't know whether out of this elongated R
7l process there is going to be any changes ordered.
I would be S
N i
j 8l Very happy to defend, if called upon to do so, that as a d
l 9!
responsible, worthwhile exercise, and I think it's much too zoy 10 simplistic to look at this in terms of whether or not the bottom z=
5 II line happened to be a change, any more than I think we may look 3
y 12 at the Appeal Board's review of an initial decision on contested i
4 g
13 i issues being worthwhile or not worthwhile, depending upon m
5 I4 l whether or not the Licensing Board is affirmed or reversed.
b i
I 15
.g MR. SHAPAR:
I wasn't suggesting it as the sole
=
j 16 criterion.
I was suggesting it as one thing.
I7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What about an overview?
E 3
18 j We are dealing at an anecdotal level.
1 p
l 19 I
g CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And, you know, if you cite three n
i 20 examples, why, those may be in fact three, what I call pathologica 2I cases which are not characteristic of the body as a whole.
So --
22 ll COMMISSIONER GILIUSKY:
I thought Howard had some 23 sense of hcw frequently this was happening.
i 24l MR. SHAPAR:
I asked them to go back to '72, when 25 the rule was, I guess, put into effect, and they came up with '
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I L
61 I
approximately -- a ball park estimate-- 15 cases, although --
I 2'
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Out of what?
80 or something 3
like that?
4 MR. SHAPAR:
Yeah.
There may have been more, because 5
j 1
that was done very fast.
9 i
f 0l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
One out of five proceedings, a u
I E
7l question is raised by the Board on its own?
i O
MR. SHAPAR:
Maybe less than that.
i d
9 ll x
~.z COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What fraction does that take
=
P 10 '
j j
up of one of those hearings, the one out of five?
=
II l MR. SHAPAE:
We don't have that figure.
We would B
i f
I2 have to develop that.
9 I
I g
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I wonder if this whole issue m
m!
hasn't gotten attention way out of proportion to --
k 9
15 1 y
i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
Since I raised the issue, let j
16 i me then continue to the point I was trying to make.
I wasn't w
h I7 ;
trying to make it from the standpoint you had wasted a lot of 5m 18 1 i
Staff time, although I think in some cases it obviously does.
I 19 j
I was trying to make the point by at least 20 illustrating two examples in which the concept of what the 21 i
Licensing Board should be looking at -- at least my concept of 22 what the role of the Licensing Board is -- was obviously separate-and I believe that the Boards were doing it responsibly, because 24 g
think the guidance, at least in the time I have 'ceen on the I
25 Commission -- I cannot really speak for the histerical past ---
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i I
j 62 1
in the time I have been on the Commission, the guidance I think 2
that Licensing Boards have been given -- and I have really been 3
focusing on Licensing and not the Appeal Boards -- as far as I 4
can see, the guidance they have been given is to expand into a 1
g 5
wider and wider scope.
S j
6, The cases I saw indicated to me that it really was R
I 7
time that the Commission should speak to that.
A j
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If they are looking at d
o; 9
things which you don't regard as serious, that's something else.
zc l
g 10 COMMISSIONER AHEA?.NE:
Which is exactly the issue z
E 4
II i that --
S y
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But you're going beyond that,
,=
g 13 and we are talking about having them end possibly all together.
I m
i I4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I gave three options.
What I j
i k
i 15 was really attempting to do in a little bit more detail is to g
16 say we really ought to review what that function is, and at M
h I7.
least clarify what the concept is.
IOl:
e COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it's worth discussing P
i 19 'l vhether the Board ought to just go ahead and adjudicate an issue g
a 20 or whether it ought to bring it to our attention.
The Board is 21l there in our place, and as I said earlier, I thought the hearings 22 l
are undertaken in large part to protect private interests, becauss 23 as Howard said, you have to adjudicate disputes.
And one of 24 i.
the private interests, of course, is not to get irradiated.
t 25 But they are also there in our place, and if we were i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 1
63 I
reviewing the decision in detail of the Staff, we would inquire 2
and if we came up on something we thought was pretty serious, l
3l we would pursue it.
I 4;
3ay ig.s a fair question whether the Board ought to 5
j just go ahead and pursue it on its own or notify us that it is n
3 6
pursuing it, or ought to ask us whether it should pursue it.
R 7l These are things we can think about.
S A
1 S
8' M
MR. DIRCKS:
Is this just the technical review d
}". 9!
you are looking for?
It seems to me you are picking up 10 sporadically.
Is this the best way to pursue it?
Are you 5
k E
II missing some issues?
Is it sort of a haphazard way?
Is this 8
5 I2 the best way?
I think that's the point.
=
\\
l 13 COMMISSIONER GILIUSKY:
You've got a series of audits, m
I4 just like the whole Staff review is an audit.
It also misses k
9 15 :
D issues.
=
16 3
MR. DIRCKS; Are these contested cases less safe w
than the ones that go through the hearing process?
j
=
b 0
~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There is something about a c
h 19 contested case that --
j MR. DIRCKS:
It gives you a feeling of security, f
I 21 l:
t i
j then.
COMMISSIONER GILIUSKY:
Now there is an issue that i
23 '
i someone thinxs is important to raise.
24 i
MR. DIRCKS:
Who is raising it?
The party who will be[
l 25 af fected, or the Board, or somebody else?
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
64 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
At the operating license 2
stage, we know it is initiated by someone who is affected.
But 3
to get back to the question that you were raising in the first 4
place, which is do we want to have a technical review.
Well, I g
5 think we need to have an independent review of the original S
{
6 safety decision.
R 7
Now there are various ways you can do that.
One way Aj 8
is for the ACRS to do it.
I think in many ways the ACRS does d
q 9ll not perform that function very well at the present time, anyway.
z 10 In part, it can be through the -- and I think it's
=
11 something we need to think about, just how we want that done.
B l
j 12 I do think it's important that there be some f
g 13,
independent review.
You have it, for example, in a somewhat
=
5 I4 i different form in the area of airline safety, wnere you have i
j 15 l the FAA and the NTSB.
l
=
g 16 MR. DIRCKS:
That's an entirel'r differant process 17 l 6
from which they do the technical review.
5 1
18 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's right.
But you do have M
l p
I I
l l9 l 9
an independent oversight over a certain line of decisions made l
5 l
20 by the basic safety staff.
Now I think you have to have that 2I!
here, too.
I think we ought to practice what we preach.
We 22 tell the Applicants that they ought to check and recheck and so, !
t 23 and have quality control and quality assurance.
I think we need 24 the same system here.
1 25 MR. DIRCKS:
That's John's point, the whJ1e hearing i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 65 1l process went on 25 years ago, and I think what nas happened in 2
the meantime, it has accumulated all these different motiva-3 tion purposes, and the --
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY.
That's right, it was sort of g
5 originally, as far as I understand it, in a sense for show, and 8f6 then it started to get taken seriously, and a lot of people got u
6 7l upset by that.
A
\\
2 8'
n i
MR. SEAPAR:
Not show, to educate the public.
d 1
9'
~.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It was easy to get into these z
o h
10 hearings because people figured if they came in and watched
=
II I the hearing going on, they would like the plant better.
Then it 3
I 12 l got taken up by people who had different -- you know, in tended 4
f 13 to do different things with these hearings.
s 14 MR. DIRCKS:
You know, the adjudicating in somc i
g i
2 1
9 15 '
I g
formal surroundings has never been in my mind a good way to I
z j
16 '
resolve technical issues.
s I7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think the adjudicatory
=
l f
18 format, to my mind -- not as a lawyer -- stems from the fact 1
19 j
that that is a traditional way of resolving private disputes 20 ;
and protecting private interests, i
I MR. DIRCKS:
I think that's where we came across 22 '
because we mixed it.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It is mixed, and we've get 24,
l to sort it out.
3
[
l 25 CHAIP24AN HENDRIE:
Okay.
l l
3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
66 1
(Laughter.)
2 It's now quite clear to me what to do next.
What 3
we do next is that I declare that although I feel it ha; worn 4
me down, that the discussion has had its purposes, perhaps as l
i 5'
g much at frustration at the direction as anything else.
n]
6l Commissioner Bradford has happily agreed to take another cut R
I 7
at here's what the whole thing is about in the broadest sense, A
j 8l being limited not by statute for that purpose.
i d
q 9l The other thing which I would like to ask Staff z
i o
g 10 l to do, since there was a certain amount of waving around of z
I
=
i II I alleged data ---
3 I
I2 MR. SHAPAR:
We were just responding to your questionsc
,=
g 13 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIZ:
Howard, if you would please
=
i 2
I E
I4 collect some kind of whatever you think you've got there b
=
15 l g
which would give us some feeling as to what I will call the
=
E I0 volume of sua sponte hearing activity compared to the total i
d I
f I7 volume of all hearing activity.
You know, if it's a half E
18 percent, in fact, why, it's hard to get greatly exercised about N
I9 !
2 it.
If it's 15 percent, why, then it's becoming a significant 5
20 element, and then maybe there is more reason to --
l 2I !
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If it's only 15 percent of 22 l the hearings--
l 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRII:
3ut -- now ny further admonition 24 to you is, please summarize the results of the data in not less 25 than two typewritten pages. Okay?
And if you want to send i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
O 67 I
enclosures, why,.okay, but you know, if you can't tell me 2l what the summary of that is -- of those conclusions are in 3,
two typewritten pages, why --
4 MR. SHAPAR:
We're going to give you one page.
e 5
MR. ROSENTHAL :
You might suggest they exclude An
[
6!
cases in which the Licensing Board raised an issue not because E
i 6,
7j it had discretion to do so, but because it was legally obligated i
8!
to do so.
The case he cited of Lacrosse, the Licensing Board d
c 9l did not raise that question because it thought this was a
,zcy 10 serious issue and was exercising its discretion, but because it E
h 11 thought, correctly or incorrectly, that it was obliged by NEPA 3
g 12 ;
to raise it.
E i
a r
13 5
Now that's a completely different category of cases.
=
I 5
14 :j w
MR. SHAPAR:
I don't agree at all.
No party raised itc wk
{
15 MR. ROSENTHAL:
That doesn't make any difference.
If
=
j 16 you are going to say that a Board is precluded from inquiring ints w
17 a matter which it thinks is a matter of law, it's obligated to do a=
{
18 j
simply because no party read the law as it read, then I think P
i 19 '
you have got extraordinarily serious problems.
g i
20 ;
I don't think that is what the Commission's discussion 21 today had in mind.
I thought it was in terms of the Board 22 -
raising on its own initiative issues which it thought warranted i
23 '
exploration under the standarfs of 2.768.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't see how you would 25,
distinguish between them, Alan.
You don't have a category of
_ ALDERSON. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
68 1 I propositions on which, on the one hand, the Board thinks we 2 I ought to raise this issue no party has raised, because we are I
3l legally required; and on the other hand, here are an illegal i
4 set of issues.
i.
t e
5l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would have felt that if the s
l
]
6l Board wanted to explore it, they should, I guess, have asked
=
F p
7 whether we wanted them to explore it.
L 4
f M
i 8
MR. ROSENTHAL:
What the Board would have to do then I
d i
k 9!
is simply seek a ruling from a higher authority as to what the 10 statute requires.
But it does seem to me that with due respect, E
II I
there is a difference between the Board raising an issue because i
j 12 agcin it believes that that issue warrants explanation, and
,=
i g
13 '
the Board raising an issue because it thinks its decision will a
m I4 j
be illegal if that issue is not explored.
E 15
[.-
Those, in my judgment, are two separate questions.
=
I j*
16 ;
MR. LAZO:
I'm wondering if Howard's data will l
l I7 include issues like Newboldt Island where the Board's inquiry l
f 18jl had the dramatic effect of having the Applicant move the plant l
P I
19 g
i to another site.
n I
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you think that Newboldt Island t
II I
moved elsewhere because of the Board's activity, forget it.
22 (Laughter. )
23 COMMISSIGNER AHEARNE:
Bob, I'm going to ask that 24 j specific question, because there was an example raised, I guess, 25 in perhaps Tony Cotter's paper in which that was the argument 1
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 69 I l that was raised, and I have got to then ask, I guess, the Board 2l and EDO, because I now have got in two different places two 3(
different groups saying the plant was moved because we did 4
some thing.
I 5
y The Board now says it and the Staff has said it, and 3
0:
maybe it was a happy conjunction, but --
R
^
C" 7
MR. LAZO:
Nothing ever got written down.
i I
j 8
MR. SHAPAR:
Only Ed Case knows the answer to that.
d 9l (Laughter. )
~
zo g
10li CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Anyway, at this point, we have z
E 4
II gone about as f ar as I want to go for today on this subject, i
I j
12 '
and I therefore will ask my colleagues to join me in voting 5
I g
13 l to have a -- now what do I need to do?
Vote to close?
I don't
=
m 5
I4 need to vote to have a short-notice meeting?
I l
{
15 MR. BICKWIT:
Yeah, I think you do.
=
i E
I6 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
This is because I l
W f
I7 would like to straighten out Diablo.
I think we have all got j
=
I
{
18l another 10 minutes of energy left.
=
g i
M - I9 l Those in favor of holding a short-notice meeting l
9 to straighten out the Diablo order wording, vote aye.
l 20 l
l
[
i 2Il CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Aye.
t 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Aye.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
aye.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
25 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Those in favor of closing the l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
70 I
meeting because it's an adjudicatory matter and the order will 2'
speak for itself, please vote aye.
3 Aye.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEAFSE:
Aye.
e 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
g 3
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
E I
7<
n; I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So ordered.
We will have 30 l
n 8
8l seconds to reduce the attendance.
a d
l
- i 9
g (Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m.,
the meeting was E
10 3;;,
ad].ourned.)
=
3 11 s
i d
12 l z
b 13,
s A
14 [
c i
M i
d 15 ;
E i
g 16 '
s 6
17
- .=
5 18 :
i E
19 !
I s
\\
M 20l 21 i l
22 '
l I
23 '
24 -
l 25 l
P l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
NUCLEAR REGURTORY CO.T4ISSION This is ;c certify tha he a : ached ;receedings before One NRC Commissioners in the tatter Of:
Ja:e of Proceeding:
March 31, 1981 Cocke: !!u= b e r :
Place of ?r ceeding:
Washincton, D.C.
were held as herein appehrs, and tha: this is the criginal transcript thereof for the file of the Cc=m:ssion.
ANN RILEY I
Cfficial Reporter (Ty.:ed]
Y f
Official Reper er (3ignature) 1 1
, _.. -.