ML20039C613

Unofficial Transcript of 811209 Commission Meeting in Washington,Dc to Discuss DOE Petition on Clinch River Breeder Reactor

ML20039C613
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	12/09/1981
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8112290521
Download: ML20039C613 (24)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:i a 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORZ COMMISSICN I5ON \\ ['* ) (. % u COMMISSION MEETING In the Mattar ef: i DISCUSSION OF DOE PETITION ON CLINCH..uVER BREEDER REACTOR DATE: December 9, 1981 pyggg: y g 7,2 22 g. Washington, D. C. l M "G A LD R %.T ' t t

r..

400 vi_T ada Ave., S.W. Waahd"g-- , D. C. 20024 l Talachc=a: (202) 554-2245 8112290521 011209 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR

NATIONS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 pUCKETT 2 3 DISCUSSION OF DOE PETITION ON CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR 4 = 5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 Room 1130 3 6 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. g R 7 Wednesday, December 9, 1981 j 8 d d 9 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 3:15 p.m., i h 10 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman, presiding.

Sg,,,,jg 7 3

5 11 PRESENT: d 12 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman E VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner 13 S JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner l 14 THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner E 2 15 ALSO PRESENT: 16 LEONARD BICKWIT ~ SAMUEL CHILK y 17 ' WILLIAM J. DIRCKS s j HAROLD DENTON 5 18 i GUY CUNNINGHAM E PAUL CHECK 19 FORREST REMICK 4 DENNIS RATHBUN 20 MARTIN MALSCH 21 22 l l 23 ' f 24 ! i 25 1 i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

DT.5~ A 't .:m- ;.:. M is a u=c 'd-d*' F

• 7 ad a.=aech 3 of d a '* d =d d

TCa:aa 3" '==- Zagu.T.ac==7 C~.

• • d 4 hald, og December 9, 1981

1. .2-der ?* *a an' s. o !'*. **- 4: LP7 E. 5caec, 3. v., Wum, d

U C-h *-*" = cyan cz puhl.h a:-=ad=*= and casa.h n. 'h ~""?: has =nt bemir :W_mred, o gg.d, or add,,, ad;, and;

u. n._ _

T.= may e '-=- _ s... h N *~72tzi=~~d" sola.L7 'ar gn=a=zL '.=f===at --=? b..-.' pu= poses. a j.. a 37 to c;3,9,1gs, g, t, =,, p,=;, og 3, is==a7 c= ' d==a.L raes;d. ci A d *

• of da n= a=s dec=sse6

~. F"** ~~~ of opd d -- 1=. "d*

=s=sc=f.;= dc. =me :ac= =- "7 c.; -

2.. = f - r 'd-=' da*=~ -= ~ =s or b = t '.e..

ye 7 ..se-, or or t page =a7 he, filad. 21.=1 da Cest:. i= a=7 p= cam as.ha= .la. 2 -.:. :ssul= cf c= ama=assed. :s a=7 s a:ama== or a. .==,- d-s_ -- c.; _

5

312,. A C as da P

' * *d a"_ lllE7 an:"12*U"* 7_. e e [ l S i l l l 1

2 PRQEggQiggg j 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The meeting will please come 3 to order. 4 With this meeting, we continue on the subject of the 5 . Clinch River Breeder Reactor. The matter we will discuss now 5 6 is the procedure for handling the DOE Petition for an ex~emption R R 7 under 10 CFR 50.12 of the Commission's Rules. Aj' 8 ~ ' In particular, we must consider who is the appropriate d d 9 body.within NRC to make the exemption decision, the Commission, 5 10 the staff or an adjudicatory board. El 11 We will not make that decision today but we will review a ( 12 the considerations involved. 5 ' 13 I should add the Commission has scheduled a meeting -l 14 for December lith to give the parties an opportunity to discuss 2 15 or give their views on the procedures for handling the DOE E .j 16 exemption request. A 6 17, Since scheduling that meeting, we have had a request 5 5 18 from one of the parties to defer that meeting until after 5; 19 j December 15th. I would suggest to the Commission that we honor 5 20 that request. We do have an opportunity for scheduling the 21 meeting on December 16th and we have reserved time for 10:00 22 a.m. on the 16th. 23 ; I think it might be appropriate for the Commission 24 i at this time to address whether or not it would be willing 25, to defer the meeting until that time so we can give appropriate ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

l 5 notice to the parties involved. j W uld y u agree to meeting on the 16th rather than 2 the lith? 3 (Chorus of ayes.) 4 ~ ^ ~ CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We will schedule the meeting 5 ~5 e at which the parties will make their presentations. s 6 ~ COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Were you going to come back 7 ~ to 'that subj ect or did you intend to talk about the format, 8 9 what we expect them to address? i h 10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I understand there have been z j ij requests from some of the parties. I gathar we are giving all the parties an opportunity to make any comments as they ~ d 12 3 h 13 .sce' fit with regard to the procedures they think we ought to E f 11 "* E 14 U 15 I w uld propose to look at our schedule a little more closely and after we hear the parties, we schedule another f 16, 3 25 l meeting at which we would make our decision. p-j7 d b 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Are we asking these people to come in and address the merits of the petition or how should { 39 i A l the Commission address the merits of the petition? 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: This would be on the procedures 21 and not the merits. Later there will be an opportunity for 22 l: I comments on the merits. 23 MR. BICKWIT: In our communications to the parties, 24 we have specifically asked them not to address the merits. 25 ; 1 I l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

4 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are we just talking about 2 whether the Commission takes it up or the Board takes it up? 3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: We have moved the meeting from the lith.to the 16th and then we figure out what to do 5 with it. a! 3 6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We had that meeting scheduled R --R -7 -for the lith so the parties could make such comments on the M l 8 procedures to be used for handling the DOE exemption request. dd 9 We just noted we had a request to defer it until after bg 10 December 15th and I suggested we honor that. We just voted E I 11 we honor it by rescheduling that meeting at 10:00 a.m. on December s ( 12 16th. 5 13 That is as far as we have gotten. I did indicate j 14 we would not make a decision today. We do want to give the 2 15 parties an opportunity to comment on the procedures. We would g 16 not make a decision on the procedures today. We want to wait l ^ f 17 i for the parties to make their comments. a= l 5 18 ' Subsequently after the December 16th meeting we would 5 { 19 have a meeting at which time we would make that decision. M 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: By the parties, these are the 21 parties to the original proceeding? 22 MR. BICDfIT: That is correct. 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I gather because it was a 24 l suspended proceeding rather than a new proceeding, those are 25 ; the parties involved? Therefore, there are no new parties I f l I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. I

5 that can come in, is that correct? j MR. BICKWIT: It is conceivable that a new party could 2 .come into the proceeding. The selection of these particular 3 PeoP e was made on the basis of the fact they are parties in l 4 the current proceeding. = 5 5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That would be Tennessee, Oakridge, g4 DOE and the NRC staff? 7 MR. BICKWIT: The intervenor contingent. There are 8-l aspects of the applicant contingent other than DOE. It is 9 i DOE, Proj ect Management and TVA. 10 oz j ~ - CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I would like to turn the meeting jj ver t Dr. Remick, Director of OPE, to review the DOE Petition 6 12 E and outline the action options open to the Commission on that 13 5 Petition. E 14 w MR. REMICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with IS me, Dennis Rathbun from the Office of Policy Evaluation. 16 2 I thought it would be helpful to talk a little bit 17 l u l i8 about what is normally required in a construction permit and = { j9 an LWA-1 exemption to set the stage. You should have a handout A I utlining this. 20 A construction permit is normally required before 21 there is the commencement of construction. This requires the 22 i 23 j issuance of a final environmental statement by the staff, a safety evaluation report by the staff, ACRS advice or a letter 24l ni hearing in which the hearing Board must make favorable 25 l, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

9 6 NEPA and full health and safety findings. i If those are all met, a construction permit can be 2 issued. 3 C0hB1ISSIONER GILINSKY: This includes land clearing 4 and so on? 4 5 5 MR. REMICK: The commencement of construction does 8 6 f7 include -- 50.10 (c) indicates you must have a CP before -commencement of construction which includes site preparation. 8 d ei 9 Normally you require those things before doing it. i h 10 However, 50.10 also permits the Director of NRR to issue a zl ~j i Limited Work Authori::ation-1 to permit site preparation d 12 activities. 3 $ '13 C05BIISSIONER GILINSKY: What is the date of LWA-1? 5 MR. REMICK: 1974. E 14 U! 15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What do you mean what is the 5 date? J 16 G COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: When it became a rule. g-j7,

s b

18 l MR. REMICK: Prior to that time basically utilities { 19 could undertake site preparation activities on their own. With A NEPA and so forth, it was not permitted unless they had an 20 LWA 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Prior to NEPA. 22 MR. REMICK: Yes. 23, 24 l MR. BICKWIT: With an exemption from 50.10, they were able to undertake that kind of construction with that kind 25, l i l i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. I

=. ~ 7 y of exemption. MR. REMICK: Before NEPA, they could undertake certain 2 3 site preparation activities without exemption? 4-MR. BICKWIT: No, they would need an exemption. MR. MALSCH: They could do clearing and stuff. i = 5 ~ H MR. CUNNINGHAM: Prior to NEPA, the rule defined i-6 -3 '7 commencement of construction differently and allowed-1certain site 8 Preparation activities. It was post-NEPA that 50.10 -- 'a MR. BICKWIT: 50.12 had a narrower application because c-9 i h 10 there was a narrower need for it. ?. E ' ~ n- ~ MR. REMICK: A LWA-1 requires the FES from the staff I ~ d 12 but instead of a full safety evaluation report 5= COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Excuse me, Forrest. What d 13 i E 14 was the application of 50.12? If I understood correctly, it wH ~ jj 15 was not basic site preparation because that was not. defined i 16 as being commencement of construction. Was it some sort of aW g 17 activity after you cleared the site? 5 5 18 MR. BICKWIT: Yes, going all the way up to safety 19 related construction of a preliminary sort. 50.12 was used A 20, to allow construction itself, up to grade. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Site preparation would have 21 22, already taken place? l I MR. BICKWIT: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What year did 50.12 become 24 25, a regulation? I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

8 MR. MALSCH: The exemption provision? The basic j provision to grant exemptions when authorized by law and not 2 endangering life or property has always been in Part 50. 3 After NEPA was enacted and the prohibition of activities 4 n site prior to a CP was broadened, at the same time additional e 5 5 criteria were added to beef up the exemption granting process -8 6 to include environmental factors. That was in 1971-1972. Much 7 j later on came the LWA regulation in 1974. N The way it works is before NEPA you could clear and 9 z excavate and construct non-nuclear forces to the facility without gg z j either a construction permit or an exemption. Exemptions were jj granted prior to NEPA to allow actual construction of some d 12 i5 3 -safety related itemsnsuch. as pouring foundation below grade. S. 13 C0bBiISSIONER BRADFORD: It was essentially the E 14 equivalent of the LWA-2? 15 f. 16 h!R. MALSCH: Essentially the equivalent in terms of a

d scope of work.

After NEPA was enacted, the prohibition of g 37 a b 18 what you could do on site withost receiving a construction permit was broadened so as to include site clearing and { j9 A excavation. At the same time they added into the exemption process 21 some environmental criteria. The process or practice of granting 3 I 23 i exemptions has continued. f COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: When were those added? l 24 l l >ia x^tsca: 1971-1972-25 ; 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.

9 MR. CUNNINGHAM: March of 1972. j ~ - ' ]' MR. MALSCH: The practice of granting exen.ptions, the broadened prohibition continued but now instead of looking 3 ~ at the 50.12 about endangering life or property, it now includes 4 consideration and balancing of some environmental factors. e 5 3 That practice of granting exemptions had continued ( 6 up until 1974 when the LWA was put in place. 7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I read that 50.12 was only ~ j'8 aj used in the Davis-Besse case, that must be since some date. 9 z MR. MALSCH: It has not been used often. h 10 z 5 C0ho!ISSIONER GILINSKY: Is it since the LWA rules y 11 m went int effect or since March of 1972? d 12 E 3 j'3 51R. MAltCH: It was originally changed between 1972 5 g and 1974. It was recently used. j4 h!R. BICKWIT: Since 1974, it has been used twice, 15 a f. 16 ' the River Bend proceeding and the WPPSS proceeding. It was 3 A granted in one case and denied in the other case. j7 w b 18 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I think there are a number = of inconsistent allegations about that provision, how often 39 8" it has been used, some which obviously are wrong. We will 20 i 21j have to learn that as we go along. Len's description is at I gl 1 east the third I have come across. I assume he is right. COSBtISSIONER AHEARNE: At some point I would hope 23 We get the correct description. 24 >t R. aICKWIT: There is a reference in Congressman 23 } ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

10 i Udall's letter, to my knowledge, the Commission has not granted an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12 in a contested proceeding since '2 3 the adoption of LWA regulations, in April of 1974. The thrust 4 of that is right. ~ = 5 ~ The only time you have had the granting of an exemption 3 6 'has been in the River Bend proceeding. That was a contested ~ - - ]e.$7 proceeding but the exemption itself was not contested. h' 8 The thrust of what he is saying is right. ~ ~~ dd 9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: At some point will we be able -~~~j~~10 'to -get a piece of paper which says these exemptions were granted ~ 11 and a date, what case and what they were? / c5 12 MR. BICKWIT: Sure. $T ~ COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: There must be a computer that 13 8 E 14 can do that. Y h 15 MR. BICKWIT: We have done it internally. 3. 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think that would be very helpful. s MR. REMICK: To issue a LWA-1 requires the issuance y 17, E l M 18 of the FES. Instead of a full safety evaluation report, a E site suitability report covering the basis -ologies. It also 19 i 8 a i 20 l requires a hearing with favorable NEPA findings and the Board i 21! must also make site suitability findings. 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: This is a hearing focused 22 l i specifically on the LWA? 23 24l MR. REMICK: Yes. COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Would it be a CP hearing 25, I f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

11 underway and it breaks off? j ~ MR. REMICK: It can be a CP hearing underway segmented 2 t 1 k at LWA, the site suitability reports up to a certain 3 y int. If the Board makes the NEPA findings and site 4 suitability findings then the Director of NRR can issue such ~ j 5 b an LWA-1. i 6 e The Director of NRR can issue a Limited Work 7 l- ~ ' ~ :8 Authorization-2 for foundation work of safety structures. This requires the FES, the site suitability report, the hearing, 9 i the Board must make favorable NEPA findings, site suitability ~ - -g: 10 z j g findings and also that there are no unresolved safety issues related to those safety structures. d 12 3 $ ' 13 This is why Harold was talking about for an LWA-2, 5 'they have to do more complete safety evaluations to determine E 14 w 't k 15 if there are unresolved safety issues related to-the proposed activities. 16 3 A COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Did NRC issue any LWA-2's? { 17 b 18 MR. >MLSCH: I think it was routine. = MR. REMICK: In addition, the Commission may grant 39 95 an exemption permitting the conduct of activities that are 20 Prohibited by 50.10 prior to the issuance of a construction 21 22 Permit. That exemption can be granted upon considering and balancing the following factors, four factors. These are 23 abstracted and are not as completely written in 50.12. 24 Those include whether the proposed activities will 25 l l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

12 -j give rise to significant adverse envi-anmental impacts; whether adverse impacts can be redressed; whetner alternatives will q be foreclosed and the effect of delay on public interest. 3 Those are the four factors under 50.12. 4 ~ As Harold indicated, the status of these various 5 = 5 -s 6 requirements, the application was docketed in April of 1975 e f 7 and the co-applicants are the Department of Energy, Tennessee f8 Valley Authority, and Proj ect Management Corporation, which a d d 9 is a corporation representing a large number of utilities. i jo Adjudicatory proceeding was initiated in June of 1975. Eg -ij The -parties to the best of my knowledge at that time were DOE, a d 12 TVA and PMC, the National Resources Defense Council, State 3md ja of Tennessee, Roane County and the City of Oak Ridge. E ~ As Harold indicated, the FES was issued in early 1977; 14 s! 15 the site suitability report in March of 1977. The proceeding 16 was to start in June of 1977 but suspended in April of that a l d 17 - year. Y i CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you ask the parties to confirm 5 18 E I 19 that they are still parties? Do you just assume they are still A 20 Parties? 21 MR. BICKWIT: You assume they are still parties unless 22 they withdraw. 23 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Roane County did withdraw? 24l MR. BICKNIT: Yes. 25 ; MR. REMICK: The Commission received an exemption b i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

13 request on 30 November, the contents of that exemption request j were a cover letter from, Secretary Edwards summarizing the '2 specific request. This was backed up by a site preparation 3 activities report, so called SPAR. In that, it addresses the 4 f ur factors under 50.12. It updates what are the proposed a 5 3j-site preparation activities under the exemption request and 6 it revises the proposed environmental or alleged environmental 7 impact on these proposed site preparation activities. 8 N A separate document came in which is a legal 9

ic. i0 mem randum which is in support of the request and covers various Czj.

legal aspects associated with the four factors, et cetera. j j. In that request, basically it requests prompt d 12 i5 consideration by the Commission itself, requesting the Commission 13 5 to consider the exemption. It asks for conduct of site clearing, E 14 U grubbing, sometimes referred to as grading, although I think 15 f. 16 there is a difference between the two; excavation and construction a vi g j7 ! of temporary support and service facilities and then some a b 18 Permanent services like a permanent road and so forth, with = j9 the request they be able to begin the site preparation activities 4 in afarch, 1982. 20 21 l Basically, in effect the request is an exemption from the hearing requirements for an LWA-1, specified in 50.10, 22 23 l in ther words, they ask for permission to do the site preparation 24 l ctivities which would normally be approved under the LWA-1 and since the FES and site suitability report exist, basically 25 I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

14 what they are asking for is not require the findings of the - y Board, that they address the four factors under 50.12. 2 3 As we see the options for the Commission, primarily 4 the question boils down to who is to prepare the initial decision = 5 n the DOE exemption request. R We see that could be done by the Commission itself i 6

and their subsets under that.

You could do it with OPE /0GC 7 assistance. According to the general counsel, since there - 8 N are no ex parte bars here, you could do it with staff assistance, 9

i h -10 a combination of staff and OPE /0GC or you might wish to give z

j jj it to a licensing board to make a record and perhaps certify that record to the Commission. d 12 i5 bly understanding is apparently the manual, the NRC 13 o= i E 14 hianual, delegates the responsibility for exemption to the Director 15 f NRR, so they could ask the Director of NRR to handle the 5 J 16 exemption request. G The Commission could still retain review. y 17, b 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It delegates? = { 39 MR. BICIGiIT: It delegates it but all delegations A re subject to the inherent authority of the Commission to 20 t ke it back at any point. 21 C05BIISSIONER AHEARNE: You are saying right at the 22 I m ment Harold could go out and sign it? 23 MR. BICIGiIT : Yes. 24 >IR. DENTON: I have no such plans! 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

15 i (Laughter.) 2 MR. REMICK: The Commission could refer it to a licensing 3 board to handle. IVe indicate there are a number of issues. We think 4 5 Policy is inherent in the exemption request. DOE stresses = 5 6 both Congress' and the President's policies in favor of f7 expediting the completion of CRBR. 8 You have received letters dated yesterday from d

i 9

Congressman Udall as well as from Congressmen Dingell and af h ' 10 'Ottinger who are opposed to the DOE request for expedited handling E ij of the request. d 12 There are timing considerations which DOE stresses E $ ' 13 the expeditious project completion and they would like to begin 5 E 14 in March of 1982. U! 15 There is a question of the impact of the changes. E 16 They outline the changes and indicate those changes result a

ri i

17 j in insignificant impact on the environment. These are E 5 18 questions I think should addressed on the merits. m E 19 The steps that we see that the Commission would need A 20 to take are decide who they wish to make the initial decision. I 2i You have already covered the NRDC letters of the 7th and 8th 22 and you have made a decision on that. 23 If the Commission should decide it wishes to make the initial decision, I think it should decide which roles 24 l 25 it wishes its various staffs to play in that. i il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

16 If the Commission decides that either the Commission j r the staff is to make the initial decision, it should consider 2 whether it wishes to request comments on the DOE exemption 3 request and what comments it wishes to receive. 4 There is one other matter that the EDO has asked me ~ = 5 b to address and that is there probably should be an acknowledgement ] 6 (7 letter that the exemption request has been received and whether .the. Commission wishes anything specifically in that acknowledge-l 8 N ment letter. 9 i CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I would propose we acknowledge h 10 z it without comment. We are not in a position to make a comment, y m 6 12 Pro, con or even a neutral one. E COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I gather this is no surprise 13 .3 E - 14 t any department, u MR. REMICK: I assume not. 2 15 MR. DIRCKS: You might want to lay out the schedule. ~ 16 3 M COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: At the moment I gather the j7 ; b 18 nly thing we can say is we have scheduled a meeting on E8 December 16th. j9 8n CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Then we want to discuss a possible 20 I subsequent meeting. 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It is getting prompt 22 I 23 i consideration. 24 ' CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, we could say we are giving it prompt consideration. 25 l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

17 MR. REMICK: Mr. Chairman, that covers our presentation. i CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I guess we are open for questions 2 n the subject. 3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I gather as far as what decisions, 4 we will have to wait until after the December 16th meeting. a 5 3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Unless we want to decide now. 'i 6-CHAIRMAN PAI LADINO: I think we indicated earlier 7 ~ .we would wait until the parties had a chance to make their 8 N. 9 -comments on the procedures. The procedures could have quite mi h 10 an impact on the direction of the decision. z j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Can we express a view? j; I think the Commission ought to deal with this. That is my d 12 5 VI'"I 13 5 MR. REMICK: What subset? E 14

aH!

15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The Commission should be able 5 - to take it up and decide the question of the exemption. 16 m us CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What staff work if any would j7 18 y u want to see developed, and the staff work may be done by m E 19 OPE, OGC and other staff. x COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would opt for 1(a) (C), combined 20 staff and OPE /0GC, assuming Len's view about no ex parte 21 Problem being present. I agree with Vic. I do not think there 22 is anyone other than the Commission who ought to decide this 23, issue. It is going to end up fundamentally being a major policy 24 question. That is what our role is supposed to be. 25 I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

18 MR. BICKWIT: You are going to detail staff to OGC j and OPE 7 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would be inclined to rely 3 4 on the staff reports to the Commission directly. It is 'e 5 obviously going to be things we are going to ask for help on, 3 inf rmation from others and from Bill. 6 7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Has this provision been used l be fo re? 8 .N .9 MR. BICKWIT: 50.12? Yes. Shearon Harris and River i h 10 Bend were examples. z! 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The paper you will be providing will utline that? d 12 E MR. BICKWIT: Yes. 13 5 g.34 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: We certainly would want to a 2 15 have a chronology on the use. E MR. BICKWIT: 50.12 has not been used frequently. 16, 3 "A l g j7 We have four examples in the research we have done, two of a! 18 which resulted in the granting and two in the denial of the E t j9 exemptions. A CHAIP'!AN PALLADINO: What so rt of things did those 20 l 21 l exemptions cover? Similar types of activities? MR. BICKWIT: Yes, in some cases and in some, more 22 minor. 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I do not think we want to focus 24 l n a decision. If people want to express their views, there 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

19 is nothing I can do to stop those expressions. y N matter which way we go, I presume we will want 2 to send whatever order is developed out for comments. 3 MR. BICKWIT: I would think there is a possible legal 4 . barrier to not asking for comments. There is a suggestion 5 b in case law that due process requires some comment. 8 6 e '7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Not asking for comment on the procedure or the substance? 8 MR. BICKWIT: On the substance. 9 i h 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: If in fact there is a strong z! 11 Commission preference for 1(a)(c), and I must say I am inclined d 12 that way myself, I am not sure what the point is of asking E the parties to comment on the 16th and advise us on the various 13 S E. 14 Procedural options. w 1:: CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: They asked, or NRDC asked for E 15 2 [. 16 the privilege of commenting on it. 3 A COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Maybe we should hear from j7 u b 18 l them on the merits. = MR. BICKWIT: With respect to the procedures, they j9 9n 20 may have some arguments that have not been presented to you r which you have not considered. 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: No matter how we want to proceed 22 n who does it, we should have some sort of order and some 23 j 24 comment on the procedure. I would expect after the procedure 25 is settled, there should be some comment period for the l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

~ l 20 j parties to provide input on the merits. I presume that would come after we make the decision as to who will do it. 2 W uld those be written comments on the merits or oral? 3 >!R. BICKNIT: They could be either. You would have 4 legal Problems if you do not have one or the other. a 5 5 CHAIR > TAN PALLADINO: I was trying to do with this 3 6 -{ 7 project what we had done for the earlier project. I had written we w uld hear the parties on the procedures then the Commission 8 N would make a decision on the procedure then prepare an order 9 i 10 f r comment, then receive comments, then I guess we would have E j jj to analy::e thos comments and then request comments and they e uld be oral if it is necessary to expedite by the parties d 12 E and everything has been heard, the Commission decides 13 s whatever the decision is, whether or not the exemption would E 14 w e-l be granted. 15

i=

? 16 I w uld propose perhaps we might try to write up a

ri something like this so we can have it before us.

Right now g-j7

a 18 l I

it is just scribblings on a piece of paper. = j9 l C0hDfISSIONER AHEARNE: And suggested time periods? 2M CHAIR >lAN PALLADINO: The time periods would depend 20 i 21 l n the decision on the procedures. You would get one timetable if the Commission is to make the decision and a different 22 timetable if the Board is to make the decision. 23 C05D1ISSIONER BRADFORD: I think we should be able 24 to make the decision on the procedures pretty quickly after 25 l 4 i i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

21 the 16th. j CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: If the Commission is that prepared, 2 it may be on the 16th we hear the parties and if the3 Commission 3 is prepared after hearing the parties to proceed in one direction 4 r another, we could do it on the 16th. Would there be any e 5 5 8 6 Problem with that? e MR. BICKNIT: Certainly not. 7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I would suggest we schedule it 8 r-that way, schedule a possible decision on the 16th. 9 i S COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: If we have questions on the 10 oz j n-merits, who do we address them to? Suppose I want to ask about d 12 the petition, what sort of mechanism do we have? E MR. BICKNII: What I understand the Commission is 13 5 going to do on the 16th or thereafter is decide how to confront g j4 15 the merits. 5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: There are no ex parte barriers T 16 k M between now and then? i j7 b 18 MR. BICKWIT: I believe there are none. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I was interested in knowing j9 8n j 20,1 how DOE came up with the numbers on the amount to be saved if there were an exemption. 21 MR. BICKWIT: The only exception I would make to the 22 1 i statement that there are no ex parte bars is if you had an 23 issue that is contested in the suspended proceeding and you 24 want to hear from a party other than the staff, there is a 25, I i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

22 possibility of an ex parte bar. If you are determined to get y answers on the merits before you decide how to address the 2, merits, it can be done with that caveat. 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Thinking ahead, will we need 4 -staff certification on any of the aspects of the four points? = 5 E Does the staff have to concur? 6 7 ~~ MR. BICKWIT: If you choose an option with the Commission o l making the final decision, then the Commission makes the decision. 8 N The staff could dissent from it. 9 i CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Could it also ask for the staff's 10 ez! 11 i P nion on these four points? MR. BICDfIT: I would assume that was contemplated. d 12 3 .3 If y u went ut t the parties, you would not ignore the staff 13 S E 14 s a party. f15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: When we send out for comments, f. 16 we could ask the staff to respond? 3 MR. BICEVIT: Yes. 37 ;

a b

18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I guess we could specifically = { j9 l ask any group to respond? ~ A MR. BICUfIT: That is my view. 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Any other comments? 21 (No response.) 22 23 l CHAI M PALLADINO: Thank you. We are adjourned. 24 l (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.) i l 25 is i } ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the COMMISSION MEETING ,l !![f.ll ADVANCED COPY TO: O The Public Docume 5$' /1! / / [ ~ g DATE: y / g 1 transcript /s/andrelatedmeetingdocument/s/.~They' ' Attached-are' copies _of.a Commission meeting are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession 1> List and placement in the Public Document Room. No P other distribution is requested or required. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual b documents wherever known. g MEETING TITLE: b Open / f 'l ! M MEETING DATE: Closed DCS COPIES: l 8 Copies (1 of each Checked) i ITEM DESCRIPTION: Advanced May To PDR:

• Original be Duplicate l%

^ R 1.

• Document Dup
• Copy *e

,k f 2. 9 5 3. Of f h 4. l ps Q t ~ p Q. 5,

• Verify if in DCS, and change to "PDR (PDR is advanced one of each document, two available."

of each SECY paper.) n-

; ;.,. a.

,

.}}