ML20054D499
| ML20054D499 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/11/1982 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19257F404 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-82-021, SECY-82-21, NUDOCS 8204230069 | |
| Download: ML20054D499 (8) | |
Text
.
'I f's
.[g,,; Transcript of Proceedings
%,ep/ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!~
AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION SESSION l
PUBLIC MEETING J
\\
t s
l a
t
- T'huisday, March.11,1982 L
'l 5
Pages 1-6 1
Prepared by:
Lynn Nations Office of the Secretary l
0204230069 820311 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
I 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 5
6 AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION SESSION 7
PUBLIC MEETING 8
9 to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commissioners' Conference Room Room 1130 ii 1717 "H" Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
12 Thursday, March 11, 1982 13 k
14 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to notice, at 3:02 o' clock p.m., NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman 15 16 17 g
BEFORE:
18 E
NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 3
ig PETER BRADFORD, Commissioner f
THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner j
20 g
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
21 i
SAMUEL J. CHILK 22 LEONARD BICKWIT FORREST REMICK 23 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
24 MARTIN MALSCH
("
25
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission held on TFURSDAY MARCH 11 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N.J., Wash,ington, D. d.19hke meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
i e
e
~
2 4
1_.
1 PR0CEEDINGS
(
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0:
The meeting will please come 3
to order.
This is an Affirmation / Discussion Session and I 4
will ask the Secretary to walk through the items on the agenda, MR. CHILK:
The first item, Mr. Chairman, is g
SECY-82-62, Pacif.ic Gas and Electric Company's Notice of 6
Prematurity and Advice of Withdrawal in Stanislaus --
7 Antitrust-- where the Commission is being asked to approve 8
an order referring this matter to the presiding Licensing 9
Board for consideration.
10 The Commission has unanimously approved that order 13 and a majority of the Commission has supported a modification pr p sed by you, Chairman Palladino.
The modifications 12 proposed by Commissioner Ahearne were not supported.
(.
Would you please affirm your votes?
14 (Chorus of ayes.)
15 MR. CHILK:
The second item is SECY-21, a Final Rule
'8 to eliminate requirements with respect to financial qualifica-17 j
tions for power reactor applicants, and to require power j
18 reactor licensees to maintain property damage insurance.
c j
19 The Commission is being asked to approve a final rule to amend 10 CFR Parts 2 and 50 to eliminate the present 20 l'
financial qualifications review and findings for power j
reactors at the CP and dL stages, and to amend 10 CFR 50 to 2i 22 require power reactor licensees to maintain on-site property 23 damage insurance for decontamination.
t i
24 The Chairman, Commissioner Ahearne and Commissioner
(
25 Roberts have voted for the rule along with the modifications l
l
3 6
1 proposed by Commissioner Ahearne.
Commissioner Bradford has
~
c 2
opposed the rule.
Commissioner Gilinsky votes in part for the
(
rule and in part against the rule.
I believe that he has 3
asked for discussion of the matter.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would like to understand 5
from the General Counsel the significance of the part of the 8
rule that deals with decommissioning.
Does this mean that 7
decommissioning is a subject which could not be brought up in 8
a hearing once this rule is in effect?
9 MR. MALSCH:
I am trying to remember what the present go rule says about decommissioning.
I think they say that you have to be financially qualified to shut the facility down and keep it in a safe condition.
That stops short of 12 showing financial qualifications to actually decommission.
13
(.
So I think we have said that under the present rules that is not required.
15 I think the effect then would be that you wouldn't 16 be able to raise the issue now unless we amended the rules so a
h 17 as to provide for it.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That seems to me to be a 3g mistake.
I am in the odd position of having proposed this j
19 j
thing in the first place, the dropping of the financial 20 8
qualifications.
The first time'around, I couldn't get anybody to go 22
~
along with this and then as interest in streamlining the 23 licensing process has picked up, people got interested in it.
~
24 The second time we took it up, it acquired this 25 extra baggage which involves, it seems to me, dropping an i
l 4
1 issue which unless we have a rule on the subject which we don't
{
2 have now which deals with it satisfactorily, is a proper 3
subject to be brought up in a hearing.
l It puts the Commission, I think, in an untenable 4
position, and do you really want to do that?
CHAIRMAN _ PALLADIN0:
Vic, I thought the purpose of 6
this rule was to get out of litigating financial qualifications.
7 Now when you bring in decommissioning, you bring in again the 8
whole question of financial qualification.
9 True, it is on a different focus but nevertheless 10 it still comes up for litigation.
We do have a decomissioning rule under preparation.
I agree it is some time off.
But in ii the interim, I don't see where that is a major issue for new 12 plants coming on line and even if we settle it a year from now,
(
I am not sure that anything is lost.
14 If we keep the decommissioning in, I think in a
'0 sense we are keeping in the whole question of litigation 16 costs and we defeat the basic purpose of the rule.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What we had before was an j
h 18 apparatus that essentially duplicated the ratings that you j
ig got in Wall Street.
We decided there was not much point in that.
I agree.
I said I propose dropping the whole thing.
a But it is quite another thing if you are saying 21 f
we are just not going to' look into these issues.
On the 22 grounds that we have a rule-making in the works, well, we have had a lot of rule-makings in the works, some of them end up 24 with rules, some of them don't.
(
25 I just don't think that it is a supportable position.
5 i
1 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0:
I still maintain that if we put
~
('
2 it in, we are back into keeping the financial qualifications in, just changing the focus from one aspect to another.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What finding is it that 4
justifies taking it out?
Is that an implicit finding now that all utilities are financially qualified to decommission 6
and if not, how can you justify taking it out?
MR. MALSCH:
I think it is just the basic concept 8
that we have discretion to either require or not require 9
financial qualification showings under the Atomic Energy Act, and we have discretion to decide what kinds of issues to look 10 at and what kinds of issues not to look at of the Act.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If an Intervenor wanted to raise the public health and safety implications of decom-13
(-
missioning, could they do so?
14 MR. MALSCH:
I don't think so.
I think our answer is would be that he should take that issue up at least one-16 that decommissioning is planned and proposed before the agency I
17 In a sense, that is splitting up the process like we split up j
18 waste disposal from reactor licensing in a similar fashion.
j c
I think that is what our response would be.
j 19 l
Now we did look at financial-type considerations 20 g
under NEPA whose focus is a little different.
g 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I would vote against 22 that part of the rule.
That is where I come out.
I don't 23 think we ought to wrap these things up together.
24 HR. CHILR:
Mr. Chairman, as I understand it then
(-
25 we have yourself voting for the rule, Commissioner Roberts
6 voting for the rule, Commissioner Gilinsky voting in part for 1
it and part against it and since Commissioner Ahearne who would
(
2 have voted for the rule is not here, my understanding is that 3
Commissioner Bradford has agreed to abstain in this particular case so that the will of the majority can be enacted.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Take early retirement?
6 (Laughter.)
7 MR. CHILK:
That being the case, W661d you please 8
affirm your votes?
9 (Chorus of ayes.)
MR. CHILK:
Thank you.
That concludes the to affirmation.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We will stand adjourned.
12
[Whereupon, at 3:10 o' clock p.m., the meeting of 13
(
the Commission was adjourned, to reconvene at the Call of 14 the Chair.]
15 16
!j 17 I
18 i
j 19 a
20 i
2, 22 23 l
24 25
I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION SESSION Date of Proceeding:
Thursday, March 11, 1982 Docket Number:
Place of Proceeding Room 1130, 1717 "H" St., N.W.
Washington, D. C.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Comrnission.
LYNN NATIONS Official Reporter (typed) 1 iMJ Uffic al Reporter (Signature) 9 rc-
-- - -