ML20128K556
| ML20128K556 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/27/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8507110035 | |
| Download: ML20128K556 (19) | |
Text
,
ORIGINAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMISSION MEETING Affirmation / Discussion and Vote (Public Meeting)
D'ocket No.
k Location: Washington, D. C.
Date: Thursday, June 27, 1985 Pages:
1 - 17 8507110035 8006P7 PDR 10CFR ppg PT9.7 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES Court Reporters
\\
1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
i
~
f o
1 D 1 S CLA I M ER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Thursday, s
June 27, 1985 in the Commission's office at 1717 H Gtreet, 9
N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain 12 inaccuracles.
13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the Formal "o r informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of cpinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument centained herein, except as the Cemmission may 21 authori=e.
22 23 24 25
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION AND UOTE 5
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7
Room 1130 8
1717 H Street, N.W.
9 Washington, D.
C.
10 Thursday, 27 June 1985 11 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 1 10 p.m.
12 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
18 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 14 JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 15 FREDERICK BERNTHAL, Commissioner 16 LANDO ZECH, Commissioner 17 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
18 SAMUEL CHILK 19 ANDY BATES 20 TOM REHM 21 JOHN ZERBE 22 MARTIN MALSCH 28 24 25
2 1
p ROC EED I NGS 2
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Good afternoon.
This is an S
affirmation / discussion session.
We have two items listed on 4
the agenda.
One of which we are prepared to vote on.
And the 5
other one I would suggest that we discuss, and then decide 6
whether or not we are ready to vote.
7 So, I wonder if the Secretary could lead us through 8
the item on which we are prepared to vote, and then we will 9
take up the discussion of the other one.
10 MR. CHILK:
The item is SECY 85-109, entitled 11 Amendments to 10 CFR part 60, Disposal of High-Level 12 Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repository.
18 The Commission here is being asked to approve for 14 publication final amendment to 10 CFR part 60, which contain 15 criteria for the disposal of the high-level radioactive waste 16 in an unsaturated zone.
17 All of the Commissioners have approved the 18 amendments to 10 CFR part 60, as recommended by the Staff in 19 SECY 85-109.
Would you please affirm your votes.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Aye.
21 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Aye.
22 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Aye.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Aye.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Aye.
25 MR. CHILK:
Thank you.
I 3
1 The second item is the Severe Accident policy.
2 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
I wonder if I might begin the 3
discussion.
Several points have arisen with regard to the 4
severe accident policy, and I believe on the policy itself we 5
. have agreement.
But the understandings that go along with 6
the agreement are the matters at issue.
7 One had to do with a paragraph that Commissioner 8
Zech had proposed.
I had proposed a modification to it.
9 However, Conmissioner Zech would prefer to go with it the way 10 it is.
11 1 gather Commissioner Bernthal would also go with 12 the way it is.
And, since I think my change was not 13 significant enough to delay the policy I would join that 14 majority.
And so that paragraph would be as Lando Zech had 15 proposed it.
16 On the matter of property, I think we have agreement 17 that the word " property" be omitted from the policy 18 statement However, there seems to be disagreement on some of 19 the understanding that is behind that.
g 20 i believe there is general agreement that in th, pRA e
21 cost-benefit analysis, property is a factor that is to be, 22 considered in the evaluation of the pRA cost-benefit i also 29 feel that equally important are the probabilitios of the 24 events from which the possible offsite property lossos are 25 determined, and we should make sure that those things are both
4 1
considered.
2 C omm i s s i oner Bernthat would also want us to accept 3
the fact that this has been long tradition, and also is a 4
matter of policy.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
As well as law.
I think 6
Fred makes the point that the law requires it 7
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I'm agreeing -- my point is 8
that as far as long tradition, I haven't examined whether or 9
not it is long tradition.
And I don't know that we need to 10 be hung up on it.
11 1 do agree that it is a factor to be considered, 12 based on the law.
And when we agree to it, then I think it IS becomes state of policy.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I don't mind dropping out 15 the words long tradition.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I do.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
The essence is whether or 18 not the Commission agrees to the fact that dropping this out 19 has no special significance, and that our policy remains as it 20 has been, precedent that offsite property is taken into 21 account 22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I have to say I don't even 23 understand why you want to drop it out 24 I have got a lot of problems with this policy 25 statement, but it seems to me what you are doing is creating
5 1
an ambiguity by taking it out.
2 Why in the world would you not want to acknowledge 3
in a severe accident policy statement, that you are going to 4
be protecting the public both from the standpoint of injury to 5
individuals, and from the standpoint of contamination to 6
public property.
7 One of the things I think we learned from the 'ndian 8
point proceeding, is that in many of these accident sequences, 9
you could and up with widespread contamination of offsite 10 property.
11 And that is a factor to be taken into account in 12 deciding whether additional measures, and what additional 13 measures need to be taken to protect against severe accident 14 consequences.
Why would you not want to make that explicit in 15 the Commission's policy 3 16 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
Well, let me answer that 17 question.
The way it arose was that this policy was now 18 changing the fundamental expression that we always used in 19 making our findings.
We also had other items going out that 20 did not have this phrase.
21 My feeling was that if we were going to make this 22 change in phraseology, we should consider it as a separate 23 matter and then change it for all the things we put out And 24 not make it just an item related to severe accident policy and 25 then forget it from then on.
e 6
1 1 didn't take a position whether it should or 2
should not be in the phraseology.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Is there any doubt in your 4
mind?
5 CHAIRMAN pALLADINO:
But I don't think it should be 6
in the phraseology of only one document, and then forgotten in 7
all the others.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Which others is it not in 9
that are of significance?
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I hesitate to pick examples, 11 but I think the backfitting rule for all I know has something 12 about no undue risk to the health and safety.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Of course that is not out 14 yet, so we can fix that one.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But I think that you should not 16 make a decision like this as a part of another action.
But 17 treat it overtly.
And that was my suggestion that we ask the I did talk to Marty Malsch, and he said that well 18 Staff l*ll let him 19 there are complications and it would be worth 20 speak for himself.
But I got tho impression it would be worth 21 treating this as a separate matter, if we are going to change 22 the phraseology.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's a separate issue in a 24 way.
i 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That was the fundamental issue
7 I
that caused me to bring this matter up at all.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But, as Jim says, he has 3
other disagreements with the policy statement But i and it is more a 4
concurred in your concern that we not 5
legal principle, something I am not terribly familiar with, I 6
guess, that you don't take longstanding terminology and, 7
without some care, extrapolate it suddenly to include a new 8
term.
Because then the longstanding understanding can be 9
confused.
10 The problem is, as you know,.that it was in there 11 and it probably wasn't wise to be in there in connection with 12 that longstanding terminology, so I agreed with you that that 13 was not wise.
We dropped it out. But that dropping it out in 14 itself can create a misimpression.
And so the issue here is 15 very simple, and I thought we had agreement 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, that's what I thought.
17 Because I had this statement in my memo responding 18 to your comments, that I agree among the factors to be 19 considered in pRA cost-benefit evaluations are possible 20 offsite property losses.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But then if you concur in my 22 memorandum, we are in agreement.
My memorandum is before the 23 Commission for a vote, and you either disagree or agree.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I voted.
I could not buy 25 all the other rationale about being longstanding.
S' 1
I don't think it is necessary, if we agree that is to be considered, let's 2
property -- offsite property 3
agree.
LJe can pass the severe accident policy and I think we 4
got our work done.
5 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I don't mi.nd dropping out 6
long tradition.
That doesn't bother me a bit.
7 The key words are that the concurrence of the O
Commission that the omission in a severe accident policy 9
statement in no way changes Commission policy and precedent, 10 as set forth in the Indian Point proceeding that offsite 11 property value is to be taken into consideration, cost-benefit 12 and pRA analysis.
13 And the last part of that, the key phrase here is 14 identical to the phrase in your memorandum.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Go, I presume you concur in 17 what 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
In this being an important 19 consideration.
Offsite property loss as being an important 20 consideration in pRA cost-benefit analysis.
I agree.
And if 21 we all agree on that, I think 22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL; Than it is policy.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That's right it becomes 24 policy when we agree on it.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
But the point is, Sam is
l 9
l 1
sitting there with a record matter that needs to have a I don't know what everybody 2
Commission vote.
I voted obviously I vote in favor 3
else's vote is on it.
My vote is 4
since it is my memorandum.
It seems to me the rest of the
.5 Commission has to vote.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Fred, you want to vote on 7
your 8
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That's a condition of my 9
concurrence.
I mean, it is clear that a condition of my 10 concurrence.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We are not making any liplication at this time that denies precedent.
12 m
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Right as stated on that 14 vote.
That is exactly --
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But you have longstanding 10 tradition and those kind of words.
17 See, I don't think we have to make the finding on 18 longstanding tradition.
And I think we are establishing 19 policy.
And I think we are in agreement that potential 20 property loss is an important fact to be considered in pRA 21 cost-benefit analysis.
22 And I would say I think that is all we have to make 23 a finding on.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
We have to make a finding 25 because, as I say in point 3 in my vote sheet, that my vote is
10 1
contingent on Commission concurrence, in paragraph 1,
that 2
says it.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Where is it?
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
The longstanding tradition 5
is my own commentary, and that is not the issue before the 6
Commission as I read it 7
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Where are you reading from?
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
And the Secretary of the 9
C own i s s i on has to make a determination of how the Commission 10 votes.
l 11 If the Commission can't concur in that, then I don't l
12 vote in favor of it.
It is as simple as that.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLAOlNO:
Which one are you reading?
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Paragraph 1 in number 3.
It 15 is the one I read earlier.
16 Omitting the word " property" from the policy The issue is 17 statement -- well, let's see, that is my 18 subject to omitting that word, which I have agreed with you to 19 omit, with the concurrance of the Commission that this 20 omission in the severe accident policy s t a t emen t in no way 21 changes Commission policy and precedent as set forth, as l
22 notably set forth in the Indian point proceeding 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That gives me another problem.
that offsite property 24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
25 value was to be taken into consideration in the cost-benefit
_...._.___.__m
=
t l
\\
11 1
pRA. analysis, l
i 2
And, let me read your memorandum, if I may. Your l
3 memorandum says:
t 4
"I agree that among the factors to be considered in l
5 pRA cost-benefit evaluation of offsite preparty losses."
l 6
Now, I don't see a nickel's wceth of difference l
7 between those.
l l
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I agree.
It is the part that l
9 comes out, "In this connection it should be noted that the 10 Commission has by long tradition.
and I am supposed to 11 concur to that.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
No.
That is my comments, you need concur only in that paragraph 13 Joe.
That is not t
14 that I have read.
I don't care whether we agree it is by 15 long tradition or not.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
But you are insisting on 17 concurrence in that first paragraph of item number 37 18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
That first paragraph.
It is l
19 just this issue that you have stated in the first sentence 1
1 20 there.
I 21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I also have a problem with 22 referring to the Indian point proceeding.
I have a problem j
i 23 there because at Indian point, while there were various i
j 24 cost-benefit analyses made, the decisions were made on the 25 basic policy question.
12 1
If you crossed out that on Indian point, I would say 2
that the first paragraph of 3 -- the reference to Indian the first paragraph of 3 I could live with.
3 point 4
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
I don't care about 5
Indian point That is a parenthetical Strike the Indian 6
point, I don't mind.
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I think you are wrong on 8
that point, Joe, that you are trying to make about Indian 9
point, though.
I don't think the judgment was made on whether 10 to do something more or less was made on the basis of some 11 broad policy judgment.
It was based on the factual record in 12 that proceeding, which included analyses of offsite property 13 damage as well as loss of life or injury to people.
14 It was not a broad policy judgment, it was a 15 specific factual judgment based upon the record in that 16 proceeding.
And I think Fred's paragraph is absolutely 17 accurate.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLAOlNO:
Well, why do we have to settle 19 that.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
I don't care if we mention 21 Indian point That is obviously a parenthetical comment.
22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS Let me see if I can referee.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLAOINO:
Yes, go ahead.
24 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Are you saying you would 25 accept the first paragraph under Fred's number 3 if you strike
IS 1
"as notably set forth in the Indian point proceeding"?
2 However, you do not want to be in agreement with the 3
second paragraph.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Right.
5 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
And Fred, you say deleting 6
the second paragraph doesn't bother you?
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL The second paragraph is my e
own commentary.
That is not what is before the Commission.
9 The issue before the Commission is concurrence of 10 the first and clear point.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINot if you clarify that point 12 see, because your memo did say subject to the following.
And 13 so if you say it is not subject to the second paragraph 14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS Strike paragraph 2, you will 15 get the concurrence of the Chairman is the way I understand 16 it.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Let's do this.
If there is 18 confusion there, I will say, rather than "It should be noted,"
19 "I
note that," because that is the sense of it "In this 20 connection i note that."
How is that?
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
22 Well, I think the transcript can show that we have 23 agreement on the first paragraph, taking out the parenthetical 24 thought.
And we need not strike the second part, but we are 25 not voting on whether that -- we got agreement on that.
14 1
I will make it simpler.
The transcript will show 2
that we did confirm the first paragraph in item 3.
less the 3
parenthetical expression.
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Well, why don't we make it 5
oven simpler.
6 I will change the wording of my vote sheet, the 7
second paragraph, which say "In this connection it should be 8
noted that.
9 Instead of saying that, I will say "In this 10 connection i note that.
which was the intent in any 11 case.
Those are my notations, not something before the 12 Commission to vote on.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
14 Now also another point that i have to point out, 15 having changed the " property," I think 1070 that accompanies 16 the severe accident policy would have to be modified in 17 accordance with the agreement we reached here.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Okay.
I think we are home, 19 except for you.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think we are prepared to 21 vote.
I would like to see that paper get out I think it is 22 a good paper, it has got a lot of very good points in there.
23 With this, I don't think we have a basis to hold it up.
24 COMMISSIONER ASGELSTINE:
Walt a minute.
25 (Laughter)
15 1
I have waited for months for you guys to finally 2
agree on a version of this policy statement 3
Now that you do, I would like four working days to I have no problem with 4
prepare my views.
And I would ask 5
affirming the policy statement today, as long as it is held up 6
for four working days f or me to prepare my view, so that it 7
can be issued as a package with my views.
8 If that is agreeable, that is fine with me.
9 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Fair enough with me.
10 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS Right.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLAOINO:
Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Right.
That is asking a 13 lot.
We have been at this four months already, to ask for 14 four more days.
15 (Laughter) 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We may find it necessary to ask 17 for another day, if there are going to be responses.
18 COMMISSIONER.ASSELSTINE:
That's right.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I will certainly accept four 20 days for you to prepare your additional remarks.
21 is there any problem with that?
22 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
No, none at all.
23 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
No.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
No.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLAOINO:
All right, if we didn't vote on
~
16 1
that today we would be delaying it more than that anyhow.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's right 3
MR. CHILK:
Let me ask one other question.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
5 MR. CHILK:
I heard you. Mr. Chairman, agree with 6
Commissioner Be nthal.
Do I take it the rest of the 7
Commissioners agree with the Bernthal 8
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
With the first paragraph under 9
item 3.
With the modification on the Bernthal parenthetical to statement.
11 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
I agree.
12 COMMISSIONER ROBERT 3:
Yes.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINEr Yes.
14 MR. CHILK:
Then the matter before the house is the 15 policy statement on severe reactor accidents regarding future 16 designs in existing plants.
17 We circulated a version to you earlier today which 18 contains all of the changes and the modifications that 19 Commissioners have made, and which have been inserted, e4 cept 20 as noted in this conversation here at the table.
21 It is our understanding the Chairman, Commissioner 22 Bernthal, Commissioner Zech, Commissioner Roberts approve the 23 policy statement, Commissioner Asselstine disapproves.
He 24 will have separate views to be within four days.
25 Would you please affirm your vote.
17 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINOr Aye.
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:
Aye.
3 COMMISSIONER ZECH:
Aye.
4 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS Aye.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Aye.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Thank you.
That w a :s a 7
worthwhile session.
8 Anything more to come before us?
9 MR. CHILK:
I have nothing more at this time.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLAOlNO Thank you.
11 We will stand adjourned.
12 (Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m.,
the affirmation / discussion 13 meeting was adjourned.)
14 l
l 15 l
10 l
l l
17 18 l
19 l
l 20 21 l
22 23 24 l
25
1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICl4L REPORTER 2
3 L
I 4
5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6
before the United States Nuc lear Regu l a t or y Commi ss ion in the l
7 matter of Commission Meeting (Public Meeting) f t
e 9
Name of proceedingt Affirmation / Discussion and Vote i
to i
11 Docket No.
l 1
12 place' Washington, D. C.
l l
l 13 Date:
Thursday, June 27, 1985 i
l 14 l
i 15 were held as herein appears and that thls is the original j
16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 17 Pegulatory Commission.
l 13 m
y (9k
{r--
(Signature) s, g
(Typed Name of Reporter)
Mimie Meldzer to 21 22 1
2.
onn R,,.
..ssoci.t... ute.
24 i
25
bbb)[thhhh(([hhhh[d[h((hh[ghshghchghgh;hghghghghghgl)phghghghghph[g(d) 12/82 TRANSMITIAL TO:
Document Cbntrol Desk, 016 Phillips j
ADVAN3D (DPY TO: /
/
the Public Docment Ibam DATE:
4 /A f / FJ' cci OPS File N:
M OPS M C&R (Natalie)
E Attached are copics of a Cbmnission meeting transcript (s) and related mooting docment(s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List i
and placment in the Public Docment Ibm. No other distribution is requested or required. Existing DOS identification nmbers are listed on the individual doc ments wherever known.
Hecting
Title:
/fM e,,, _;Tl n ) //fi < s num ) W O aXL
?
//
h h
meting Date:
- 6. /,.2 7/C Open X Closed M
DCS copies (1 of each checkcd) i It s
Description:
Copies Advanced Original my Duplicate l
To PDR Document be Dup
- Copy
- 1.
TRANSCRIPT 1
1 When checked, DCS should send a copy of this transcript to the LPDR for:
i 6
2 ja >,, _ -
? / '. /c) ?
.?
l h,
/
b I
3.
i i
l 4.
1 l
.1 L
(PDR is advanced one copy of each documnt,
h";
I two of each SDCY paper.)
[
g',
a A
IIlIPIPIIIPIPIPIIPIllllIllPlPIPI ll\\PIPIPIPIIPIPIl IPI WIIPIlPIPIPII
'