ML20147C646
| ML20147C646 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/18/1977 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147C637 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7812180363 | |
| Download: ML20147C646 (88) | |
Text
,
c 9
0 I
CR 5276 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BUD:ro 2
tape NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
(
l 4
5 COMMISSION MEETING 6
7 a
Licensing Reform 9
10 11 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.
W.
g Washington, D.
C.
Tuesday, 18 October 1977 14 The meeting was convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m.
15 Dr. Joseph M. Hendrie,,dhairman, presiding.
16 PRESENT-17 Dr. Joseph M.
Hendrie, Chairman 18 Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Commissioner Richarg T. Kennedy
['39 n
Commissioner Peter A Bradford Mr. Martin Malsch, OELD 20 Mr. Lee V.
Gossick, EDO R".
James L.
Kelley, Assistant General Counsel g
Mr. William J.
Dircks Mr. Edson G.
Case
'2
^
Mr. Albert Kenneke, Office of Policy Evaluation 23 24 lh The initials appearing in the j
lefthand margin, i.e.,
WW and JB
.u ruore n w,m s.in.:.
indicating corrections, are those of Wm. White and Jake Brown 25 l
Office of the Secretary.
781318o36 3 l
Reviewed 12/4/78 l
c
i
,CR 5376 i
2 JRC:guh Tape 1 1
1 !
PROCEEDINGS 2f CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see, we've got an object l
3!
to look at and to compile comments on, hopefully this week, so I
4 that we can feed back commission views to responses.
While 5
you were all in Vienna and other exotic locations, Peter and 6
I had a chance to meet with the FEA staf f, who have been draf tinc 7
and saw an intermediate cut and discussed some of the options-on that.
I'm not sure that this one reflects fully the things 8
9 that we talked about, Peter, and I haven't been through it in 10 detail, except to go through Englehart's memo.
So I think that we need to sort things out and 3) understand some of the differences and what they mean and whether 12 w
like them or trim them or however.
(
13 I'll be glad to entertain suggestions for an y
a but my suggestion is that we start on page 1 and let's 15 plow ahead.
We will encounter places where we'll have to stop g
a minute and reconnoiter forward in the draft to understand 37 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I'd be delighted to start 9
"P9 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I recommend that we start at the beginning and move forward.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Even the title is well 23, s ta ted, I think.
he Federal Reportes, Inc.
( I, ghter.)
25 I
I l
gsh 2 3
l l
1
{
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The section headings are 2 !
clear and conform, indeed, to the text which follows.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, that's certainly a k
4 necessary requirement.
I don't know if that establishes 5
efficiency, but -- necessity.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Page 2 gave me the same 7
feeling although it's more terse.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes..Maybe there!s less to 9
work on.
10 Let me ask a question.
Marty, as this is drafted, 11 many of the things that we had in our draf t language appear 12 either verbatim or very nearly.
However, the configuration of the sections are different.
Is a somewhat dif ferent re-14 numbering proposed for these amendments to go into the Atomic 15 Energy Act?
Is there any comment, sort of right at the beginning 16 is there any comment about the desirability one way or the I7 other of sort of the overall structure where these provisions IO lie?
39 MR. HALSCH:
Well','it makes.it difficult to compare 20 the two bills because the structure is so different.
In terms 21 of its effect, this is probably a little better because it bumbs 22 all of the substantive amendments up front and then the conformir g 23 amendments later on.
So from that standpoint, this is a little 24 preferable to our version of the bill, whi,ch had interspersed A e f ederal Reporters, Inc.l 25! the major changes with t*ua conforming changes.
I 1.
9sh 3 4
1j They seem to have done a good job with the conformi ng i
2 !
changes.
So they haven't lost anything by virtue of restruc-3 turing the bill. But it makes it very difficult to take our 4
bill and this bill next to each other and compare them page-by-5 page; in fact, it's almost impossible.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yeah.
Okay.
There is, then, 7
nothing in the sort of structure, Jim What's your view of 8
this?
9 MR. KELLEY:
I agree with that.
10 C'! AIRMAN HENDRIE :
And it's as reasonable this 11 way as the other?
MR. KELLEY:
It'll make no legal difference.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
From the standpoint of clarity
(
13 r the lack thereof of a.further amended Atomic Energy Act, do 14 15 you see any --
MR. KELLEY:
No.
That thing is so chewed up 16 anyway, you're not destroying a beautiful study.
37 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
18 j9 (Laughter.)
MR. KELLEY:
The time to rewrite that statute is 20 when they split the agencies and they didn't do it, and so it's g
kind of a mess anyway.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
The basic 23 arrangements then seem reasonable enough.
" Findings and Purposes,"i 24 Ac woi teponen, Inc.
now that clearly ought to be a section in dhich one, in fact, 25
i j
5 I
9S,h 4,,
[
i 4
1 could compare in a straightforward way.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is true.
They've i
i 3
added (Inaudible).
3 i
lI 4l CHAIRMAN HENDi'.IE :
" Findings and Purposes," a l
5 bill --
)
6 MR. MELSCH:
I can describe the difference.:if you t
7 like.
J 8
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Please do.
9 MR. MALSCH:
Okay.
First of all, generally l
a 10 interspersed throughout the " Findings and Purposes" section jj are references to not only a more efficient process but also --
not only a more effective process, but also a more efficient 12
('
13 pr cess --
f COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the word?
j4 3
MR. MALSCH:
" Efficient"?
15 I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or " effective," yeah.
16 i
l MR. MALSCH:
Well --
)7 s
019ISSIONER BRADFORD:
Precisely nothing.
I 18 2
mean as far as the legal significance is concerned, an 79 eff ctive process, by definition, is efficient.
20 MR. MALSCH:
Well, I think " efficient" has gotten I
to be kind of a code word, t
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, exactly.
And I think 23 that every change that they've made in here is on balance 24 Aa Federal Reporters, Inc.
what we sent them.
25 f
i 6
gsh 5 And " effective" means what?
Sound decisions or 1
l 2., something?
l 3
MR. MALSCH:
Well, "offective" certainly means
(
4 sound decisions.
You know, "officient" has gotten to mean faster sound decisions.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Nonetheless, sound 6,
decisions, 7
MR. MALSCH:
Yes.
Well, " efficiency" is sort g
of like motherhood.
I mean, how can you be against efficiency.
9 But it's got to have a meaning in here.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You are suggesting that 7j the length of time does not necessarily in all cases equate g
with the quality of the product?
13 MR. MALSCH:
Yeah.
I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's a reasonable presumption, I would think.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But it doesn't add a thing 17 to the word " effective" as far as I'm concerned, other than a sort of roa.d, here we go --
MR. MALSCH:
Well --
$tes./fnd 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDYt It cculd be effective in 21 terms of its ef fectiveness without being ef ficient, couldn't 22 I
it?
23-COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If it accomplished the 24 to accomplish, would it not then be Ace-Federal Recor ers. Inc.
25, purposes which it set out 1
x
f cJsh 6 j
7 1 ;! judged offective?
1 2
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I wouldn't think that a 3!
comprehensively effective licensing process, which is what it k
4 modifies here, could be other than efficient.
If you did in 5
20 years what you could do in 10, I wouldn't think that was 6
effective.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would agree with you.
8 MR. MALSCH:
That's sort of, maybe, one of the 9
lesser important changes in Section 2.
Some of the more 10 important ones are that there is a new finding in here
- that, jj in turn, keys into the later NEPA sections that says that the 1
1 12 Federal Government should exercise the authority to make site,
yes~ cibL,1,u1(n
(
f 13 f r civic, environmental and generic need fora MraMible) in the state, don't elect to make these determinations.
And 34 also, a finding that in turn is keyed into later Section 111, 15 which.says that site planning and need for power determination 16 i
should be made consistently with national energy priorities.
j7 Those two are new and are made necessary by 18 virtue of additional changes or differences in this bill, as 39 compared to our bill.
20 p(f.sw q inaudible) that sito decisions There is also new
- p 21
~
necessarily entail a balance consideration of alternative
{
energy sources.
A new finding that the reactors should be 23 located away from -- continue to be located away from metro-24 l
Ac 4derot Reponert Inc. ' politan centers -- and then --
25
8 gsh 7 d
1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Marty, how many of these 1
I 2' are actually new and how many go back to the Draft 2, the 3
Administration code?
l
',(
4 Do you remember?
1 5
MR. MALSCH:
Well, I think --
1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is that a fair question?
6 d
7 MR. MALSCH:
Yeah.
I think the only one that 8
is new, really new, is the one we added about continuing to exercise our statutory responsibilities, which they added in 9
here but then modified to say that safety, instead of being 10 jj paramount is essential.
5 I think other than that the rest of them were, 12
.ch doe in one way or another, reflected inA(inaudsbFab Draft number 2.
[
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't see -- when you 74 start putting in things like minimization of the use of oil g
and natural gas, in effect you're saying that such facilities 16 ought to be retired and you ought to put in nuclear reactors,
)7 or what?
18 4
MR. MALSCH:
Well, reactors or coal.
79 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
For conservation?
20 MR. MALSCH:
Or solar.
21 t
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or all those things that 22 i
it says here?
Are we really tilting with the need for power 23 determination here --
24
! u,.r.a.coi seporters, be.
MR. GOSSICK:
Well, right now we basically use a 25 a
i l
e
i' gsh 8 l
9 (44.c tv.4-
/1:
coal plant as well, don't we?
(Inaudible) required r.o look at i
2 these other possibilities?
3, MR. MALSCH:
Well, we look a t them now, too, but
(
4 they're sort of dismissed easily.
(Inaudible) in the ground is 5
not economically feasible.
Conservation in the ground is 6
unpredictable.
You're pretty much left with the fossil plant 7
versus a nuclear plant with the final cost / benefit analysis.
8 This doesn't change that all that much, although 9
we can argue,'for example, whether conservation-is an alternative
~
10 source of energy or not.
jj What's important is that this finding keys into 12 the heavy role that under this bill DOE has in state law 13 planning, because under this bill, states are to submit programs
(
to DOE for DOE's approval and the state boards are supposed ja to comply with DOE's long-range energy productions, and that 15
- ,, x/J.m tapev 16
' Mnaud M elqchange.
Even under DOE Draft number 2, and I don't think
)7 DOE had anywhere near a stronger role in the state energy --
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is that consistent with, 39 added to, or unrelated to the present energy bill?
20 MR. MALSCH:
I'm not sure.
I think it's added.
MR. GOSSICK:
I think it's added to.
t.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In other words, this is something which is going to be talking about the broad energy Ac a.d.,et Reportm. inc. i picture and broad energy planning in a nuc1' ear licensing bill 25 I
i
gsh 9 ld a
2' l
I which is not included in the broad energy bill where one would 2
think it ought to be.
3l MR. MALSCH:
Well, there is provisions in --
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, I sympathize with it 5
and I agree with it and I agree with it in principle.
But 6l I'm just aski:.g whether it belongs here or someplace else.
t 7
MR. MALSCH:
What's new, I think, is there is 4
8 provisions in the Department of Energy Organization Act for 9
DOE to make l'ong-range energy pro'jects and' submit'to th'e i
10 Congress these biennial long-range energy planc.
What's new here is that these are given a specific statutory role.
11 MR. CASE:
It provides an entree into the early 12 site decisions that are later covered in the act.
(
13 MR. MALSCH:
Yes.
That is new.
ja 1
s MR. CASE:
And also, I guess, gives you some 15 leverage on the state to make sure it takes into consideration 16 7
national energy goals.
j7 CGMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But it's not inconsistent 18 with the purposes of this legislation.
j9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It does a lot more than t
20 this legislation would do.
I mean, as I understand it, it g
pretty well gives DOE the power to tell the states what they're 22 l'
5 under the very broad language about setting guidelines.
There's thing to prevent DOE from saying that among your guidelines n
24 AceJederal Reponen, Inc, 25
'gsh lo, IJ 1
At that point, there isn't much left for the g
11 2
states to do.
That takes care of their electrical energy i
3!
planning.
(
MR. MALSCH:
Except that it's strange because the 4;
5!
state submits a program to DOE and DOE approves it, and the 6
state says, oh, we changed our mind.
We're not going to have l
7 25 percent margins.
DOE can't terminate the program.
All they call do is terminate financial and technical assistance.
8 So it starts off strong in terms of DOE's role, 9
but ends up weak.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
But what then becomer, j) f the state determination as to need for our in particular 12 siting proceedings?
Does DOE have the position to say that
(
13 the states are not making their determination in a timely manner g
because they're not making the determination pursuant to g
DOE's guidelines?
MR. MALSCH:
I think not.
^*' Y " ""'
18 MR. MALSCH:
I'm pretty sure because for one thing, Pete, we can't terminate the program under 111.
And for another, for some reason, they key in between DOE's plans and programs and long-range planning and site permits is much stronger than f
the key in between the state need for power determinations under i
the NEPA sections.
The two seem to be independent.
24 Ace-Fedwal Reporters, Inc.
MR. CASE:
They seem to be independent.
It's not 25; e
gsh 1,1, 13 1l clear which one governs, is it, if there's a conflict?
I 2
MR. MALSCH:
Well, the bil.1 isn't clear on that.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, the state won't issue
)
I 4
a certificate for a particular facility, even though it might 5
be regarded, at least by some, as fitting within the overall 6
plant, why I think that that settles the matter.
1 MR. MALSCH:
That's the way that the bill literally 7
\\
reads.
The states uti' ~ issue certificates; they still can 8,
make need for power determinations under the later NEPA section, 9
and those are not on the specific plant and site.
And those 10 are not directly keyed into or related to these long-range 3j n rgy pl ns up in Section 111.
12 (wJL LL u+
y.
(
MR. CASE:
The-p1nn Ii nnor ible), you could say 13 that the site is acceptable under NEPA because there's a need for it there.
But later on, the state could say, un uh, don't build a plant there.
Don't build that specific plant.
g MR. MALSCH:
The only specific purpose it has in terms of our process is that it enables us to use either 18 DOE or state projections in the site from a proceeding, and that is no direct tie-in.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think from our standpoint establishing, providing a framework for that sort of planning,
\\
long-range planning, on a public basis with the states and so on is very helpful because it does provide a context in which 24 Atehderel Reporters, W.
you Can Consider the early site, an application for a site permit 25 l
l i
13 gyh 12,
{
1 on an early view of just a site.
Otherwise, I suspect that we i
t 2!
will have come difficulty in devising a suitable test to 3: answer the question, why consider this application for a site
(
for a possible nuclear power plant at some possible time far in 4
i Sli the future when we aren't clear as to whether in fact there 6
will ever be a need for that power.
7 And I think that because that need side is a part gl of our present NEPA review process, that people will feel very
~
~
rnuch a need for some comparable or recognize ~ the greater 9
10 generality of the thing, some comparable sort of a finding
))
in considering sites.
One of the criticisms of some of the earlier 12 bills was that if you go ahead and review a lot of sites and
~
13 some of them are okay and you get permits sort of willy-nilly
)4 and the countryside is dotted with potential, with approved 15 sit s f r nu 1 ar p wer plants, that there is created a strong 16 predisposition to build nuclear power plants on those sites 37 nd the comment was that you may establish that predisposition 18 before it's clear that there's any reasonable need and that
)9 9"""#^
Y E ""
20 the region.
So here there is a structure in which, what I'll t
's call the generic need for power in a region can be tested in presumably will be public proceedings on the state energy plan.
ke Fedeof Reoor*ers, Inc.
3 25
e
!I 13 gsh 12 ll d
1 on an early view of just a site.
Otherwise, I suspect that we
?
2 will have some difficulty in devising a nuitable test to I
l3: answer the question, why consider this application for a site l
I!
4,lforapossiblenuclearpowerplantatsomepossibletimefarin to whether in fact there 5; the future when we aren't clear as 1
)
i 6l will ever be a need for that power.
.I 7]
And I think that because that need side is a part 4
1*
8' of our present NEPA review process, that people will feel very I
~
i 9{ much a need fer mome comparable or recognize the greater some comparable sort of a finding j
10p generality of the thing, jj!
in considering sites.
1 4
4 One of the criticisms of some of the earlier 12 bills was that if you go ahead and review a lot of sites and
(
13l ja!
some of them are okay and you get permits sort of willy-nilly and the countryside is dotted with potential, with approved 15
]
sites for nuclear power plants, that there is created a strong g
a predisposition to build nuclear power plants on those sites j
37 and the comment was that you may establish that predisposition j
18 l
before it's clear that there's any reasonable need and that
)9l that generation would fit. reasonably..within an overall plan for 20:
L the region.
So here there is a structure in which, what I'll I
call the generic need for power in a region can be tested in 23 ;.
presumably will be public proceedings on the state energy plan.
24 ;;p
- vhcieral Reporters, Inc,N doh then provide a place for testing of the conservation 25.
t il d
12 gch l>3 1
option in establishing that generic generating capacity i
2 projection.
3, So I think it does have an important underlying i
I 4!, role in terms of, I think, our ability to deal sensibly with 5
an early site review.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, there is a program 7
that migh t do that.
But I don't think --
8 Marty, I still am not at all clear that when gjl. f w.<A p & w+ A 9
you look at Section lll(a), it says "(inaudible) in such programs,# that is, the states' advanced planning programs, 10 11 "should be established in conformity with the Department of Energy guidelines and shall," and then you skip over to (c),
12 "be implemented consistently in coordination with the activities
(
13 of the Department of Ene4gy."
ja I don't know how you implement a plan, except 15 in the form of bringing specific facilities into being and' 16 making determinations on them.
)7 And it seems to me that this says that that's 18 going to be done in conformity with DOE guidelines.
79 20 going to be unacceptable and that it will take this bill 21 l
righ t along with it.
It would be one thing to provide for a 1
j framework within which DOE was to set up state programs, maybe 23; IH even pursuant to -- I have forgotten what the terrr.c are that 24 l AceJedral Reowen, he.
We used in our own NEPA review, where it's procedural guidelines.
]
25 I
i I
l 1
.-4 a
J 1
la csh 1.4, 9
a i
j l
l' But what this really does is to say that DOE l
2 can establish, not just the procedural thing, but the sub -
3 stantive framework of state energy planning, and as nearly 1
1 i
1 lI 4!
as I can tell, require that the plans be implemented consistent A
l 5,
with DOE activities, whatever that means.
4 6-MR. MALSCH:
Well, the care is certainly there
}
i 7
in terms of the funding.
2 1
J gl COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yeah.
MR. MALSCH:
But once the program is in place, 9
all DOE is authorized to do is to encourage the states to 10 I
continue to comply with --
jj i
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, the language says 12 l
that the programs shall be implemented consistently and in 4$(
13 coordination with activities of the Department of Energy.
What
)4 I
l y u'r s ying is that the only sanction is to cut of f the 15 f""di"9' 16 Supposing a state, in fact, said, no, we're not l
)7 g ing to follow the DOE's guidelines.
We're going to recommend 18 i
1 something else on the specific plant.
Why couldn't DOE 39 ff tively enjoin that as being a violation of Section 111(a) (l; (Ti 20 i
MR. MALSCH:
Well, it's clear that they can 21 i
decline to participate at all, in which case I think the only I
offect is that DOE, rather than the state, makes the so-called
,7 4, m p n l) n k 23l jev
" :4
- i. generic need for power deterdinationg(knaudiblu site formation.
i
- 24 P 2a,43. et =,owen, inc, l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right, that's right 25 l
l
=
15 u
,ge,h 15, f;
i d
1 But supposing th'e state doesn' t want to decline to participate?
2: Suppocing the state actually deciden that it doesn' t want that i
I l
31 25 percent reserve margin; it wants a 10 percent reserve
!I 4
margin.
s i
t 5!
MR. MALSCH:
You mean once it enters the program s
6-decides it doesn't want to --
7, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
f I
l 8l MR. MALSCH: Well, the bill literally says in 1
all circumstances all DOE can do is to encourage the state to --
9 3
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What section do you have 10 l
11 in mind when you say that that says that that's all that DOE can do?
12 MR. MALSCH: Let's see.
Page 11:
"In the event
((
13 that the problem determines that the program is not being y
C""#i"0 "D
r a plan has n t been prepared consistent with 1 15 ub
)
and 2, (inaudibTE) is authorized to encourage the state or
.g authorize regional organization to modify its program or plan."
17 And it's authorized to terminate funds or assistance.
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yeah.
But there's nothing j9 i
in there that limits it from also going to court (inaudible) 20 i
pursuant to lll(a) (1) (c).
The state's failure to certify should be deemed a failure to act because it's not consistent 22 il i
F with the activities of DOE, and therefore, given that the
,3 ;:
! state has failed to act, DOE will go ahead and make the 24:'
4 A:e-rederal % pores inc.I certification.
25!
i l
l 19 gsh 16 0'
6 MR. MALSCH:
Well, I think that they would have j
a hard time doing that in view of the careful une of the 2l l w rd " encourage" rather than " terminate."
3i On h
D COMMISSIONER BRADFOR:
Well, it's in a section on 4
p
/
l 5l funding.
That's whole Section C is on funding.
t MR. MALSCH:
That's why I say it starts off 6
strong, the whole section, but ends up being kind of weak.
7 Now I'll grant you that there is the appearance 8 !}
and that may raise the hackles 9l; of a very strong DOE role, 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think that that's
)
it's a section on funding.
certainly true, but -- yes, What's the court going to say when DOE shows up in that posture?
Is it going to say that DOE should go away, that its only remedy is to stop fundirg and now that we're in the sixth year of the program funding, it doesn't matter anyway?
MR. MALSCH:
I would think so.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Peter, my guess is that the drafters didn't intend to -- I don't know -- but my guess is that the drafters did not intend to imply a federal preemption of a state's rights and prerogatives in the area and it might 21 be useful to raise the question.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, it would be E0 P
! inconsistent, certainly, with the botch that Bob Hanpling felt
,O 24 reFeoeral Reporters, loc. he was in in terms of the states, and I'm surprised by it.
But 2S' l
i
gsh 17 h'
18 5
[
i 1 hI would think that they would want to make it a lot clearer 2hwhatthoseguidelineswould, in fact, address, or at least 3 / what -- if nothing else, its message to DOE would terminate I
funding for a state program if they violated a substantive 4
5 guidelines.
I don't think that DOE ought to be in that (inaudib: e).
MR. MALSCH: Knowing the subject also --
6; CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
One would think the Secretary 7
w uld have to weigh the costs and the benefits of termination 8,
under that provision rather carefully.
9 MR. MALSCH:
Even in the later NEPA section.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADE'ORD:
Yeah, I mean they might jj never do it, but --
12 MR. MALSCH:
Even in the later NEPA section --
(
13 t
in the later NEPA section, you notice in the NEPA preemption, ja as it was, in the old DOE draft, they've taken out NEPA power.
The preemption now only applies to environmental acceptability.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADF'ORD:
Yes.
j7 n
y u have put your finger 18 on something.
It just ought to be clarified.
They have the j9 20 nonce provides for funding, provided you don't discriminate in the (inaudible).
And there were lengthy lawyers' debates as i
to whether you had to cut off the program or whether you could L' sde to force the agreement.
And the statute was unclear, so you kaxiercI Reporters, He.l go to court.
25 0
y ssh 18 il 19 n
I 1
But here, again, though, once DOE funds a program, g
l 2' the program says, we'll do it this way, and they turn around 3
and do it the other way, then DOE is going to be confronted t
4 with whether they can sue to enforce the agreement or that 5;
they have to cut off the money.
And I would think that they 4
I 6' might prefer the flexibility of suing.
The statute doesn't 7
say.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The difference -- I 8
4 was thinking myself about the Civil Rights Act as a precedent.
9 The difference is that in the civil rights situation, you had l
10 j) a problem, at least what was perceived as a problem, of states having for years actively committed a variety of violences 12 under the title of civil rights., You really don't have that
{
33 background of state abuse here, and it seems to me at least jj i
premature for DOE to be going in with even the appearance f that fairly coercive federal role that was justifiable in 16 the civil rights situation.
)7
+
~
18 ings in the beginning of the bill.
i 39 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Which one?
20 1
MR. DIRCKS:
The finding that national energy 21 policy determines -- number 6., "It is in the national interest 22 ggg
'd j that planning for energy
-i-naudible4 and citing the need for 23 ecololgy (inaudible) be made consistent with the national energy 24 priorities, including the (inaudible) of oil and natural gas."
- ""*'"I"*"'""'
25 :
L l
a
i gch 19 i
20 t
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, now, if what that 1l l
2i said was, be made consistent with the minimization of oil and I
I 3: natural gas, and perhaps conservation, I guess then I'd be I
i 4
comfortable with it.
But the problem there is that it gives 5-you a blank check to write subsequent national energy priorities 6
under the guise of DOE reculations.
7 MR. DIRCKS:
But this is about the only place 8
that it shows up.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What?
9 MR. DIRCKS:
ll(a) 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
But there jj are ways to limit DOE's actual power to tell the states what 12 to say in their energy plans that it seems to me ought to be
(
13 in there.
I mean, yes, there are some clear national energy j4 priorities.
I think that they would want to put conservation 15 in there along with minimizing the use of oil and natural 16 gas and reducing oil imports, that you would want to see j
77 l
r fl cted in state's -- I mean you wouldn't want to see the 18 State of Massachusetts come out and say (inaudible) forth our 19 lectric power generation and oil exclusively from the Middle 20 East.
At least not without some pretty COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
On that point, Peter, i
they have got them in the very next one.
+
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
See,iI'm wondering whether 24 Mo Federal Peporters, Inc.
25 h
il b
Gsh 20-21 Y
1 belong in the bill. I mean, I'd assumed, you know, with the 2
major crisic and the oil delay (inaudible), we may discover 3
tomorrow the country is sitting on the greatest deposit of I
s i
4 ! natural gas that's ever been discovered in history, and I 4
I
,3 5
would just leave it consistent with the national energy r33b 6
Priorities.
MR. CASE:
The problem with that is that that 7
is the blank check.
They are whatever you say they are, whenever 8l 9
you say.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I guess I don't find that 10 objectionable because I suppose that's probably the way they're j) g ing to have to be.
National energy priorities ten years ago 12 would not be at all what they are today, and that's precisely
(
33 What we're discussing.
)4 S
it seems to me that we've got to take that into 15 account and recognize that there will be changing priorities.
And I guess I'd sympathize with your view, Dick.
I'm not sure 18 that's desirable.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would agree with that.
I wonder whether -- has Congress ever elsewhere ever declared minimization of use of oil and natural gas and (inaudible) imports to be a national energy priority?
23 24l think they mig'ht have.
I'm not MR. MALSCH:
I 4e. Federal Reporters, Inc.l pg gitgyg,
7gi S an FCA act, or something.
25 1
4
I 22 gsh 21, I
i 1
MR. CASE:
Energy Conservation and Supply Act?
21 COMMISSIONER BRitDFORD:
Something like that, yeah.
3 MR. CASE:
ESCA, Energy Supply and Conservation I
di Act?
There were two of those that had passed in '74 and
'73.
5 I don't remember the precise line-up, but there was a lot of 6
study --
cot 4MISSIONER GILINSKY:
You know, what if OPEC 7
breaks apart tomorrow and oil is $2 a barrel?
You may just 8
look at the whole situation differently.
It's not the kind of 9
10 thing, it seems to me, you write into law.
CilAIRMAN HENDRIE :
I don't much care -- why don't jj we regard it as a relatively low-level comment because I think 12 it's m r in the nature of (inaudible).
If they get a --
(
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think it's a comment j4 w rth making.
I take it by low-level, you mean the comment 15 n
il nd natural gas.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
- Yes, Period after, that w
r mm nd period after priorities, and leave off the con-18 i
cluding phrases of that one just on the basis that it then is 1
)9 1t le broader and I would suggest that we make this as an 20 editing, as a suggestion for a somewhat clearer and more precise bill, and not in the sense that, by God, this is something that 22 i
'w 're really pounding the table on and we at the NRC feel this 23 provision, you know, which would be a serious impediment or
,4, t-ce Fede ci Reporters, Inc, g
25 0-
i 23 gsh 22 l
i l
l'. the other guy's problem and if they want to get themselves tied i
2.
in and establish -- I'm sure, in fact, that there is some l
l 3! legislation around in some of these other acts that has this
(-
4 kind of language in it.
If we discover a ]>t of oil, Vic, why, we can 5 !
6 always change the law and declare oil to be good.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If you dincovered that
~
)
8; much oil, you can be sure that there will be a lot of people 9
recommending just that.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And have an awards ceremony 11 for oil companies.
(Laughter.)
12 CHAIRMAN BRADFORD:
A more likely, I think,
(
13 scenario might be one in which for a given region it might make ja 4
sense to use oil but to provide in scae way for stanu 15 4
domestic sources or of coal conversion, 16 Now I can imagine situations in which that might j7 make economic sense.
18 gwa Ethe 4
4, What do we in fact (inaudible) there now?
A R gj 9 sheet, a letter signed by you saying here are our comments?
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
Do we know --
g have we received from the Office of Management and Budget a 22 I
request for review of this legislation?
23 MR. MALSCH:
I believe we have.
I've not seen 24 A.:=.Fedevol Reporters, Inc.
the letter.
I think it came into your office, Jim.
25 I
i i
I
I gsb 23, l
24 1i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
My guess is that if we haven't i
2j got one right at the moment, why, it's in transit.
3 MR. MALSCH:
I know they sent one because I talked I
4f to DOE yesterday and asked if this was the OMB clearance i
i S
version, and the answer was yes, the letter went out Friday 6
or yesterday, whenever.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
I asked the drafting crowd to please send some copies over as soon as they had one 8
l 9' that they knew they were going to present to OMB so we could 10 sort of lean forward and do it and get a look at it and come 11 to grips rapidly.
They'll be pressing, I expect, for a few 12 days turn-around.
MR. MALSCH:
I've heard they'd asked for comments
(
13 l
14 by Thursday, but I've not seen the letter.
i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Tha t would be, you know, 15 S rt f imPortant to know, wouldn't it, this being Tuesday?'
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The schedules on this bill 37 always --
I don't know whether it's inappropriate, but the
)g schedules on the bill have always been, "We have to have it 39 this afternoon because we have to draft the final version 20 tomotrow morning," you know.
And in part that was working g
then
]againstaCongressionalrecessdeadlineofearlyOctober,
{
mid-October, now late October.
I think as a matter of fact 23 that it's absolutely clear that the Congress isn't going anywhere 24 "
I Ac &ederal Reporters, lrse,'
25 I
k
l
.g s,h 2 4, 25 1
time to have Christmas at home.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I was told over the 3
weekend that Mr. Dyrd intends to go home, and he can go home 4
a long time before Thanksgiving.
5 CFIAIRMAN HENDRIE:
lle'11 be lucky if he manages 6
it.
]
l 7
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
He's going 1.o manage it 8
by not bringing up a number of issues that people would like 9
to have had out on the floor.
That's what I'm told.
If it's
)
10 a contentious issue, it is not going to be brough to the floor.
)
j1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The House side has concluded 12 that it's Thanksgiving.
{~
13 Anyway, I think --
Jewjm MR. KELLEY:
(Inaud# bile) is going to look in the ja letter and we can make a phone call.
We'll find out what the ccn d.pcAnd' WO c/c,ind ;8 requested deadline isg(-i-nauditrie}v
' ;y,16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In any event, my view is that
)7 n'
fe mpe un urs y
adline.
Okay?
18 If we can round our comments up this week pretty much, I think j9 that would be highly desirable, but I don't feel compelled to 20 delivery by a Thursday deadline.
g COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is anything going to W*
happen with this bill before next year?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There continues to be, and AC9Jederal Repodert, Inc, 1
hop <a that it can be presented to the ain y agr e 25
-D
l li
,9.sh,25 ll 26 a
ll 1
Congress before they recess so that it is a bill on the 2l Congress' calendar, which will have v.hatever value that I
i l
)
3 carlier filing has when the second session starts in January I
(
a and also, it's not inconceivable that a few of the committees 5j r subcommittees may have occasion to drop back into town and 6
hold a hearing on it daring the recess, which they would 7
find it awkward to do if there were not a bill submitted.
v S
I think it would be very desirable if it i
8:
i 9l could be presented for those reasons.
Who knows?
i 4
1 10 Okay, why don't -- on finding 6, good, we'll jj whack out the end starting with " including," and simply i
12 mmend that from our standpoint we think it's perfectly r
(
13 adequate just with a semicolon, I guess, after " priorities."
1 j
ja COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If they do want the phrase i
in there, I would also urge that conservation be elevated to that priority.
)
Dick, you made the point that it does appear in 17
,3 that section.
But there it appears as an alternative source 2
and not as a national energy priority.
9 It seems to me that to think that minimization of oil and natural gas and production of oil imports are the only national priorities worth mentioning, that that understates
~
what the President said about conservation.
Certainly it understates what I feel about that.
24
.A&fedarol Reporters, Inc^
CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
All right.
Let's see.
Is 25:
l
i gcq 26.-
l 27 1
somebody keeping account'of these notes, I hope.
l, 1
1 1
2 MR. MALSCH:
I am.
l j
3!
MR. DIRCKS:
I am, too.
4i CHAIREMJ HENDRIE :
Good.
That will give us a 5i 5
cross-check.
6 Le t us. go back to page 3.
i
{
7 MR. MALSCH:
The principal difference on 3 is the reference to " efficient" and " facilitate" and " expedite."
8 i
I i
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, let me recommend the i
10 following:
I would recommend, I have no objection to an i
l 11 effective process; I
have no objection to an efficient i
12 proceas.
It's not so clear to me that the finding needs to
- {'
13 talk about " facilitate" and " expedite."
I think an effective I
and efficient -- so a good way to me for it to read would be 33 1
that " consistent with sound safety and environmental controls 15 j
must include an effective and efficient licensing process j
16 4
j for siting construction and operation of nuclear power reactors
)7 j
l which mee t --
l 18 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's all right.
Our k'b
-t, own Finaudibhr) I 20 think) ahould be set for nuclear reactors, i
which I don't have strong feelings on one way or the other.
MR. KELLEY: The OMB request is for new Thursday (inaudible) on Thursday.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I wonder if we will have 24 AceFuieral Paporters Me.
time to (inaudible) our own administrative operations, Circulate
)
25; l
I
n gdh 27-il 28 l
l 1;
the letter to us before noon, Thursday, I would just like to 4
i 2l know that we had complied with it.
I'm only noting that it i
3!
is getting close to noon, Tuesday.
(
It is a partly facetious comment, only partly.
4 t
Sj MR. KELLEY:
Well, perhaps at the end of the 6
meetings, the meeting or meetings, today, you might see where 7
you are, and if you're worried we could call OMB and just 8l tell them where we are and get a feel for how firm this is, 9
if you wish.
MR. MALSCH:
Well, I talked to DOE yesterday and 10 I inquired as to what the turn-around time was on the OMB 3) clearance and was informed that it was Thursday.
There was sort 12 fa small chuckle after I was informed that it was Thursday.
(
13 At least Susan Pierce didn't think that all of the other ja ag n i s w uld respond by Thursday.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
A very sensible woman, d
(Laughter.)
"^
^^ " "
Y'
~~
18 CCFMISSIONER GILINSKY:,
By the way, I think it's 7t t.,as e/
y.
ing to be had to argue W4m&Mm de mA g
7 20 r
responsibilities over the states or having a coordinating process that is going to lead to a more efficient licensing process.
That's just an aside.
(Laughter.)
24 Ace kede al R porters' inc, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: We got rid of the phrase e.
b
1 gch 28 l
29 1;down in number 4 about traditional allocations of authority I
2 jmaking preferable (inaudible).
31 I don't know why that ever came back.
It seems i
I 4 to me that that finding starts just as well with the word l
5
" determination," and then just go on that they should be made l
6 (inaudible).
d 7
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Take it out?
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would, yeah.
It's 9 another one of those low priority things that just makes it a 10! neater bill.
And the word "should" goes in and strike the 11 word on page 4.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, have to make "should" --
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And then "should not be" ---
['
13 MR. MALSCH:
Five, six, seven and eight are'all ja new, as compared to our version.
Five is necessary because of the NEPA sections.
We discussed six.
Seven is just new. Eight's j
16 l
new.
Nine is somewhat similar to one of ours.
77 Y
^
18 required of nuclear power (inaudible) and it was concluded to
)9 be sited away from metropolitan centers?
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What does that mean?
l 21
{
Does that mean in closer than the-are now or what?
i 22 i
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Continue.
23
)
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
" Continue" means to 24 Ace. Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 i
gsh 29 30 1l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So does that mean you 2 get up and just, follow current policy or not get any closer
- 3. than the closest one or --
/
I
\\
4l MR. MALSCH:
There's some debate on whether the 5l closest one --
l 6
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I take it.
that whatever 7 the current standards are are based not on some long (inaudible) 8 energy or what the national interest in the Atomic Energy Act, 9 futonboththehealthandsafety, and recommend it.
I I
10 supp se it would be more sensible just to continue to use that standard.
I take it that the reason why it doesn't appear here
))
12 n w is m re cosmetic.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
This is the place to put
(
13 this --
74 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This is another one.
15 I mean it prejudges future technology.
g COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Of course, all kinds of "9"
P' 9
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You know, I believe it was I
20 siting criteria and --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Did he say that?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, back in the April energy l
24 !yaolicy thing, along the lines of encouraging the Commission to
' Ac..r.derai n,poreen. ine.dbstablish criteria, clearer siting guidelines, or something along 25 l
.i 1
f I
gsh 30 31 f
Ihthoselines.
2 But it doesn't come up anywhere in the --
l 3:
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Raising this point in i
4f a matter of the national interect in a pretty serious point.
I 5l MR. MALSCH:
It doesn ' t appear any place else 6
in the bill.
It has no specific operative effect.
It's just 7
in here.
j gj MR. GOSSICK:
You might as well put in PRDS in l
9' here, I mean you know, 10 COMMISSIONFR KENNEDY:
Why not?
A lot of things 11 that are in the nati7nal interest.
Seismology.
12 (Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, do you want to --
(
13 COL.
- I' lER KENNEDY:
I think it ought to be
)4 0 1" d'
15 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is the sense to recommend g
deletion, again, since it doesn't seem to do much harm except j7 18
~~
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, we're not sure of
)9
,that.
This afternoon, no, but I don't know about tomorrow 20 jaftornoon.
q~ y COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I certainly, I wouldn't see any harm in leaving it out.
i 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, I'11 recommend 24 h edwal D* porters, Inc. y I
4eS deletion.
- 25l, O
- I U
'l H
t
.gs.h 31 32 1 I MR. DIRCKS:
It's one of those phrases that could 2
come back to hurt us because it's --
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Commission opts for metropolitan setting.
5 (Laughter.)
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I intend to get out a press 7
release that I've hard for the principle initiated here and 8
i lost to a --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is legislating that kind 10 of thing which gets most agencies in government and, indeed, j
li most people in the country, in great dif ficulty.
And nobody knows what it's intended to accomplish.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me put' a level 2 beside it.
I4 Level 1s are ones where we're sort of shrugging and saying we 15 don't, you know, we suggest you consider this alternative, and 16 level twos we're saying it somewhat louder because there seems 17 to be, we can see, you know, probably not very serious, but 18 ome reason why you might not want to be tied that way.
l9 MR. KELLEY:
It would be worth commenting that 20 this whole section is level 2 because it doesn't do anything; 21 it's just an expression of sentiment.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Except one thing:
give 23 prist to the mi11 of all the attorneys who are going to take 24 { verything that happens in the licensing process into court for p
Ace Fedsrol Reporters, Inc.
25 the next ten years litigating every piece of this bill.
L-l
qsh 32' 33 1 I I
MR. KE'LLEY:
Not this attorney on this section.
[I think very little --
3!
MR. DIRCKS:
That happened on the Clean Air Act 4
nondegradation, which forced the EPA to co'.ne up with whole
.]
rules and regulations on nondegradsted-air.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is that in the findings?
7 MR. DIRCKS:
That's in the preamble to the 8 - Clean Air Act that air will not be degraded.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Which is certainly a 10 desired result of that, too.
11
- MR. DIRCKS
That is a result of massive economic 12 planning for the whole United States, and that was only in the 13 l
areamble.
gha (pd I4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Oky Jim, are you 15 suggesting that we ditch the whole --
16 MR. KELLEY:
I'm just suggesting that the findings 17 are very important in my view.
I don't much care what this I8lays.
h MR. MALSCII:
I think the saving grace of this 0 section is that it restates current policy.
2l CIIAIRf1AN IIENDRIE:
I think that there are so.ne 22 helpful things in it and on balance, I'd just as soon have it ac j
s 23 not, but that's at best a level 2 comment.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have just a question on m..r.a..o.,... s:.,
gjj c;aj 25 humber 9.
It's one that couhi have (i.nauddhle) long ago.
Is
Fl l
34
'gsh 33
'i jithere anything in the context of talking about standard nuclear l
2l facility design that could be said for adding a phrase af ter that cdk/c&,vad l f D p n mz~~
i 3i to ae effect thatg 4 wudib h &
r 4
(&L A r> y[M FW"*MW e
v o g
CIIAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, I see what the problem is.
1 4
/
5 They took up the standard design just because it has a national 6
flavor.
7 we're trying to get a full national --
MR. CASE:
That raises the question that you put 8
i also in to protect public health and safety because that's 9
10 also a consideration that enters into how long you standardize i
11 on a given design.
I think you're picking off bits and pieces and
),j
)
(
13 yu hoose one, then maybe you ought to look for all of them.
)4 1
0
""99 " "
15 the reason you're encouraging standard design is to avoid
^
g individual licensing proceedings.
Is that the reason we're doing that?
g They never say what standardized designs are.
19 j
Y*
^
20 in the special section.
COFB1ISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I'd like to know
?
what they are.
MR. MALSCII:
I'll say one thing.
The tie-in
- Ace Federal Reporters. Inc. between the policy in favor of standardized nuclear designs 25
il
.gsh 34, I
35 j!and the need to avoid extensive individual licensing proceedings j
l i
2lis less strong in this version than it is in our draft, t
3!
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess that I would say i
(
! " facilitate" rather than " encourage."
It seems to me that 4
i i
S
" encourage" has to do with -- I mean the industry has to work I
6 things out for themselves and there are a lot of factors here 7 that we may not kr.ow about -- the relative economics of doing 8 things one way or another way.
And it seems to me that what ILwe ought to be doing is making sure that if they go that way, p
10 is that makes sense, that there not be any unnecessary j) stumbling blocks in the way.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Fine.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This has kind of the
(
13 sense of us indicating which way the industry ought to be going and I don't think that we ought to be doing that.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In the past, in the sense, in some of our policy statements from the Commission, we have ipone that.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It would seem to me that that would be the effect at least.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It was the effect and it 5
j:ertainly is that in industry, which is unusually sensitive to what regulators do.
But I guess I would be more inclined 24, 1
Aco.deral Reporters Inc.Ito say " f acilitate. "
25' l
h gsh 35 36 1l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's fine with me.
- 2)
'p1+/ %
4-COMttFSMvhu nBT5TCDYr The NRC bill had the I
3 second part of the sentence, the reason why it would facilitate --
l
(
4 use the word "faciliL te" then, rather than a separate finding 5 here -- they may be avoiding the need for ostensible individual 6 licensing proceedings, a separate binding, in effect, whereas 7 in the NRC version, it had that avoidance as the reason why 8 you would facilitate standard design.
There 's a li ttle bit more 9 in this thing than we had in ours.
10 MR. MALSCII:
I think that ours is a little stronger jj in that regard.///7 l$wa40 (j,
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It goes beyond s hr. tar-12
~
dization, in a sense.
13 MR. MALSCH:
Yeah.
In our bill, the time between
)4 av iding individual licensing reviews and standardization was 15 stronger than in the DOE version, which at least can be read 16 as having two separate thoughts:
one, encourage standardized
)7 nuclear es gns; and w
yo e nee or enen ve n
dual 18 licensing proceedings.
39 "9
8
- "9"""
20 i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would say we want to avoid the need for extensive individual licensing proceedings e
4 if the industry chooses to go with standardized designs.
23 In other words, we oughtn't to make them go througP Acehleral Reporeers. lecithat over and over and over again.
But I don't think we ought 25!l
i
.gsh 36 1
37 l
1lto be' dictating which way the industry goes.
q I mean that l
2 0
!involves a lot of complicated questions, and I don't think that 3l We have all that much time.
l
(
4 MR. MALSCH:
Well, it could be drafted to say 5
a.c o$5 the (ibum use of standardized facility designs which would avoid the need for extensive individual license procedures.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't we just suggest that 8 number 9 would be, that we think the intent of number 9 is 9
better expressed by our previous language, which is siting and 10 construction of nuclear power reactor may be facilitated --
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's a look at page 5, 12 too, at the bottom, number 5, which raises the same point.
(
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, we could use " facilitate" 14 rather than " encourage" over there would be consistent.
But 15 if it's okay with you, why don't we suggest the previous 16 language and then treat that finding for purpose -- and that one, I7 for reference of the no'.e-takers, was (6) on page 2 of the 18 September 26 draft.
pama),f">
f b I9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Had youg (inaudible) to 20 some way indicate that those results were important, less 2I important, and not extraordinary, because I think that this 22 l ould be more important than some of the others.
p I
t 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'll rate this one at 2.
I 24 inven' t gotten to anything, I don' t think that we've gotten to AceFederal Repor'ers, Inc.
25 pny thing yet that's a real table-pounder.
l
l 38 ph,37,
MR. GOSSICK:
That's a level 1.
1' CHAIRMAN llENDRIE:
But it's clear --
2 MR. GOSSICK:
It's level 1, going the other way.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I said ls are lower level
(
a comments, recommendations.
It's like one star, two start, 5
three star.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What is the range that 7
w'r dealing with?
One to what?
8 CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
Three.
9 (Laughter.)
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Oh, three. All right.
))
CHAIRMAN llENDRIE:
Well, we may develop a 4.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That makes the difference.
(
13 (Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN llENDRIE:
Three, the Commission is
>ounding the table, and four, the United Commission will fall
'co the floor and hold its breath till it turns blue.
17 How about that?
18 (Laughter.)
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That' ll show them.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's a fairly Japanese 21 concept.
22 7-1 (Laughter.)
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They'll probably send 241 Ace Fed-ral Reporters. Inc.lDVer some radio production guys from EPA to find out what's 25l t
i l
1 i
39 gsh 38.
q h
jdcaused this problem.
I t
2L (Laughter.)
3, MR. MALSCH:
Page 5, number 10 is the same as t
l
, (-
4jours, except " paramount" is replaced by " essential."
i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think " essential" is --
5 6j COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What does the word 7
" essential" mean?
How essential can you get?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess that I would g
be inclined to go back to what we had?
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Paramount?
i 10 MR. MALSCH:
The difference is that " essential"
))
literally implies, you know, can't be ignored;
- whereas, g
"param unt" says that not only can it not be ignored, bu t in
(
13 some sense, it really shouldn't be outweighed or overriding.
g That's sort of the implication.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I'll tell you, in saying that we're taking into account that absolute safety is 7
no longer, that the absolute safety is an unattainable goal f
and we're sort of taking a step into space -- and I thought that
)9 20lthis number 10 should not be giving any messages other than that.
4 21 4
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
" Fundamental" and "indis-22 I.
pensable."
I'm not sure how much farther one can go.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
Adequate protection 24l1
, Ace-raerot pepare.n, Inc.1;is essential, is fine with me.
Adequate pro'tection is of 25 n
li
il
!I gsh 39 J
40 0,
1 j
1f I
think " essential" is probably better.
4 1
2!
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
IL's a synonym.
3!
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Dick just looked it up; i (
4 it's a synonym.
l 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I'm disappointed --
l 1
6 4 mean, you know, it's a small point -- I guess I'm disappointed l hat j
7 t they changed the word.
i l
e 8
(Laughter.)
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You begin to wonder if i
l 10 it makes no difference, why are they doing this?
Obviously, 11 ht makes a difference to somebody.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I wouldn't be surprised at 12 what " paramount" means.
f 13 4
s COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
(Inaudible) come up with ja
' essential" but somehow, to go from what we had to something 15 4
weak here I find a little disturbing.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I'm not sure that it's
)7 l
wear,er.
I know how strong you can get.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have a notion that the 39 ra ers may a
a ng about the " paramount 20 l
l considera tion" was somewhat weaker than " adequate protection" is essential.
22 I
O That's a total, you know, that's a guess, a 23 speculation, and I have no objection either way.
24(
Ace Feoerol Reperte*L inc.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think maybe what they 25 1
i
.i gsh 40 j
41
- )
j 1'were as lawyers a little uneasy with a phrase like "of paramount I
2 consideration" --
3l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY.
" Paramount.
Having a f
4, higher or the highest rank of authority."
5 l-It seems to me that that is not as strong as j
6
" indispensable," you know.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's use " indispensable."
g, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
" Essential" is a grand word.
9,We've been using it in the rules of this --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Somehow, I guess in just 10 jj reading it, it just seems softer or weaker.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, why don't we put 12 back that it is a paramount consideration.
(
13 CilAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The paramount.
)4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
All right, the paramount 15 consideration.
g COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Which I think doesn't 17 change where we are, except that we are introducing the notion
)g of absolute safety (inaudible).
39
"^
^
^"
"Y ~~
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The next draft when we
, find out that industry has looked it up in the dictionary and
(-
leaps to support this one, we can change it back to " essential."
23, i
(Laughter.)
241
- ,r,ayoia,,,,,,,3,:""d CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We'11 have' to watch the 25l l
1 l'
k 6
p 1
gsh 41
- l 42 yt,yrpm
, 1 l:41_.audib4cd with this section very carefully.
If it seems too l
2 one-sided, we'll know we've erred.
I 3j (Laughter.)
(.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We're just playing with 5 code words here.
You know, " absolute safety," all that.,
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, let's see.
The thrust 7 around the table here is to have it quite clear that " adequate 8 protection of the health and safety is essential / paramount /
indispensable."
Okay?
And if somebody then derives what seems 9
like a reasonable argument for some other language than the 10 jj paramount consideration, is, in fact, more likely to be con-sidered generally more forceful, then --
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or understood, 33 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or understood -- then you g
9
~~
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, my concern is
- )
simply this.
In introducing the idea of stating explicitly g
9" 18 be taken in any way as a method --
19 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
To do less.
1 20 j
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That you do less than se're doing.
o I
So maybe when we've decided that we do want to do Jess, that we'll deal with that separately.
24 l AuJedual R,emm. inc. l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We'll deal with that separately.
25 l
4 j
(u 42 43 y!
i 1 !!
COMMISSIONER GILIUSKY:
Yeah, that's a different li n
2 jgues tion.
N 3i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me class this one a 2,
(
4 okay?
It's clearly more than a 1, but I don't know.
5 MR. GOSSICK:
Would the thought be strengthened 6 by changing the "and,"
that " adequate protection," that we change 7 that to "but"?
It seems to me that notwithstanding these 8 statements that for "but adequate protection," and so forth, 9 "is of paramount consideration. " You can qualify it now.
At 10 least it gives it a little bit --
jj CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know.
I'd prefer 12 to stay with the previous language, but I don't care much --
13 think it should be " protection of the health and safety"?
and I MR. GOSSICK:
Yes.
ja CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know what we had 15 previ usly, but I w uld re mmend " f the health and safety."
16 Let's see, at the bottom of the page, to
)7 conform to a previous use of
" facilitate," instead of "encouragirtg 18 the use," should we say "to facilitate"?
)9 OMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Now as far as the language 20 that we put back in there, it doesn't -- okay.
Yeah.
I guess i
21
" facilitate," because --
22 i.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, because the other one 23 says, " siting of construction may be," it says, "may be 24 A a-red.,oi s.p w.o. inc.: facilitated by use of standard designs which' would reduce the
.l,
44 gsh 43 l
1!;need for individual --
ll 2j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yeah.
I guess the 3 difference between that and what you do by putting the same I
4 language in here is that our language there doesn't really cf gzaa u k 's F'"]
5l say that we want them to go that way,j(inaudible)y )p,u t I
- suppose, 6
from what you say, that the purpose of the act is to facilitate 7 -i t, then you still aren't saying that they're supposed to do it.
8 CIIAIRMAN llENDRIE :
I think that t. hat was the 9 distinction that Vic found between
" encourage" and (inaudible).
10 We'll have to issue a dictionary of Commission 11 shades of meaning.
J 2
12 (Laughter.)
a COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What you're doing is to j (
13 facilitate (inaudible).
14 (Laughter) 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: 'We're facilitating $f"*[
16 C,,,n y w d Tb ta (inauditrle) what had come before, not,p(-inaudibitr) to --
4 37 MR. MALSCII:
The only other changes in B are, 18 again, a reference to " efficiency" and a statement in number 2,
)9 i
,,, e a -
j f'20 site reviews and planning should and-tinnYdtble) need electrical generation facility siting.
g CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
Say that again, Marty.
22 I
\\
M H:
where you state the purposes, the 23 24 jonly ther differences are the reference to " efficiency" in u.f ca,<oi itepom inc.E number 1, and number 2, the references to " insuring the 25 o
5 a
e il 0
l 45 gsh 44.
i l
I I(electrical generation facilities."
2h It also added regions and subdivisions in number 3l 4, but that's not a very major thing.
l 4
CIIAIRMAN HENDRIE :
I guess that doesn't upset 5jme much.
6 I suppose if we were, I guess if we were 7 drafLing, were the drafters, and were concerned entirely about i
I 8 our own process, then I expect that we would be reluctant to l
9 include in this bill some cf the things like the DOE role in 10 advanced planning, and so on.
But it is an Admi nis tra tion bill, 11
,s o I think that there are certain things in here which are, 12 i.n effect, DOE-related provisions and as long as they don't
['
13 do any violence that I can perceive to NRC's proper ro,le in 14 things, why, for myself, at least I have a lower level of l
15 concern about how they're --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, now, I feel th e c, 16
' hat you are saying is perfectly true, to the extent that these w
17 jg are DOE statutes, and the fact that I think that they're 39 very, very troublesome is less important than I would if I 20 thought that they had a direct impact on the NRC.
But still, it's -- Section 111 on page 7 --
page f.
21 it think, though, tha t a --
22 CIIAIRMAN IIENDRIE :
Oh, you're over talking about 23 iflll.
I was talking about some of ithat language on page 5.
74 Ace Fedcol %porte,s, Inc.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm sorry.
25,'
I I
gsh'4.5, 46 i'
I If CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's advance to page 6.
2',
COFD1ISSIONER BRADi'ORD:
Because the last of l
3i the findings led right into it.
(
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Well, wha t I was going S! to suggest with regard to 111 is that, judging from our I
A (j
6l discussions with HanJling and company, I didn't find in that l
7 kind of discussion an intent to say, you know, the feds are 8l going to compel the states to do certain things, And why don't 9 we just draf t up a sort of comment over all the Section 111, 10 rather than to try to do replacement wording.
And the comment 11 is that we believe it should be clarified that it's not the 12 intent here to give DOE preemptive power to force states to 13 d
certain things.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, because the whole 34 thrust of what we were saying was that 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
And then if it is their intent, 16 they ought to be clearer about it.
j7 (Laughter.)
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But I think we've spent 39 an awful 1 t f time n the proposition that the states should 20 do these things without having the Federal Government step in 21 where there are cases where there are urgent national priorities g
i inv lv d to step in.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
So on Section -- there gl Aes Federal Reportars, Inc.
25 lwill be sort of a generic comment.
.i
.I
gsh 46 47 i;
!I I
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That would get us all the 2'way up to page 12.
I 3!
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Up to page 14.
\\
I 4
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
12, I think.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
12?
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see, 12 takes us to the 8.part of Section 111, which begins to deal now with the Commission s
9 role in advanced planning, and Marty, how close is that to our 10 own language?
11 MR. MALSCH:
It's very close.
What's new --
12 COMMISSIOAER GILINSKY:
Let me ask you something
/
13 about page 11.
Why is it necessary to say that the DOE is ga/Au.) a. 22TL ev Aujr-
- ' 14 authorized to encourage the state org (i-nandi'ulu) and so on?
15 Isn't it obvious that they can encourage anybody 16 to do anything?
-pa MR. MALSCH:
Well, when I read this what I
)7 18 thought was significant about this was that they used the 3,wid,'
Dc5 f q,,
j9 word " encourage" as opposed to 4eaud hle) terminate the J
20 pr gram and then reinstate DOE preemption.
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, why would you put 21 that into the law?
22 l
MR. MALSCH:
I thought it was to make
.t clear 23 24 ;that that's all that they could do. " Encourage" -- it's a very Are.Federa! Repo*ters, Inc.
weak kind of a thing.
25 1
l l
i 1
l!
t 48 gsk 47.
l l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Does it have that effect?
2l MR. MALSCH:
That's the way I read it.
1 3
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is that the way you read
(
4 it, Jim?
I l
l 5
MR. KELLEY:
I'm sorry, I wasn't listening.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The top of page 11.
I 4
i J
7 mean it just seems a peculiar thing to put into a bill.
1 i
8 MR. MALSCH:
It's peculiar.
It struck me as I
9 peculiar because to me it was clear when they naid that, that i
10 they meant that that was all that they could do was to encourage.
i 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Which is weakening their j
I
)
i 12 role.
(
13 MR. MALSCH:
That's right.
1 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
As opposed to terminating.
s 15 I'm still -- it seems to me that there was a fi nding in there l
l 16 nbout the need to conform in the earlier language we talked 17 about.
I think that they ought to clean it up.
If all they wan.
18 to do is encourage-there are ways to say that, i
MR. MALSCH:
I think that we got into-our
.l 39 20 comment --
4 l
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I guess Vic's point,
- though, 21 is that even with our general comments, if you reduce it to 22 J
r you're still 23 l the point where all they're doing is encouraging, p /ag % h.d/m M.lu de q r/ d j
l 24 i n t sure of4 Finauditrid.
I Ace Fedyal Repor+ers. Inc,!
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No, not why they r' suld 25 m.
~ ~,
49 gsh 4ti i
1!bedoingit; why you would want to put that into the law.
2' I mean, unless it means something other than what I think it 3 means.
4j MR. MALSCH:
Well, it does have a specific I
Shpurpose, mainly, where there are these programs, they're used 6 for the need for power determination ing (4M41+N site pp*}'
ga NGC q
7! proceeding.
That's its only specific function in this bill.
l' 8f COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If we didn't have that 9 provision in there, couldn't they still encourage the states?
10 MR. MALSCH:
Yes, but it would be --
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
- Yes, but it vould be i
12 casier for people in the Congress, as well as in the courts,
(
13 to challenge the extent to which they do it.
And what they're 14 trying to do is get an expression, I suppose, that that's 15 what they want this agency to do.
($t&,a..~V'~lw I
-MRWN: 4 It also provides --
.h16 J
_j Jynap un b
a COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: J 41naudibtE) start out 37 18 if y u can get the Congress to do that, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
By spelling out this process j9 in the statute, even without, you know, great mandates and 20 p wers for DOE, of course, everybody can do it, it provides 21 a framework describing what's meant 1 ed and open plan-22 1
ning, to which you could then refe
. you say in doing an 23 early site review when you don't have a specific facility 24 I;!at hand, you look at these advanced plans ad part of the, in Ace Fede<ct Reporters, Inc.
25 N
i 50 9sh 49 l
l 4
ll terms of the y aric need for power question that inevitably I
2 arises with regard to that site.
I 3;
So it has that useful aspect.
nic$ar
'(
3 4 Now on the Commission early planning'cassion, do 5 we have any --
6 MR. MALSCH:
The two principal differences are, J
7 first, tha t --
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me ask some questions.
9 shen we drafted, we put this kind of section in.
In our draft 10 there was no mention of a DOE-sponsored and encouraged process 11 to get a state plan in place, biennially updated and so on.
12 With such a DOE structure in the
- bill, do we need this?
Or
!{
13 does this become a parallel and sort of redundant structure, 14 or does it join on in a reasonable way?
MR. MALSCH:
Well, that there's 15 less of a need for it.
The difference, I guess, is that 111(a) j 1
16 1
j7 through (d) focused on DOE and state relations.
This focuses on NRC-applicant relations.
jg COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Which may be a state or 19 l
20 may be utility.
l MR. MALSCH:
Could be, yeah.
That's the differenca. j 21 N w, there is less of a need for that kind of thing.
22 i'
CilAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
Okay.
But it says that this 23 is authorized and directed to take action -- to get applicants 24 awreJcci.teponen, inc.
t engage in open and advanced planning, and so on and so on and 25 i
}
51 gsh 50 i
I so en.
That might very well take the form of saying, you know, 2 if you want those nuclear plants and get them licensed here, 3 'go and join the state, you know, join responsibly and I
4 vigorously in the state plan, and when you do that, why, that --
l 5 okay, okay.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We used the language, 7 and it is our language, " interested in qualified persons."
Do 8;you need " qualified" there?
Wha t does it accomplish?
9 MR. MALSCH:
I'm not sure that it accomplishes 10 a heck of a lot.
I find it hard to visualize.
I was turning 11,to someone now who's interested on the grounds that he's not 12 qualified.
(
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, we wouldn't turn 14 him down anyway. Of course, this is a stato process and --
15 MR. MALSCH:
I think that this is just language 16 that has appeared in various versions of the bill for the t
37 last several years.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It does feel a little
)g 39 foolish changing what we sent to them. But as a level 1 change, 20 I would suggest that that simply be (inaudible).
lJ)n. Xu}n.
Ohry aLYl' $ 0 juu< % w A; \\
R
'MR,-MALSCHi--Ghange-(inaudible).
<. 3 21 Just dropping "and qualified"?
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yeah, just dropping and 23 24 qualified" as a level l comment.
Okay.
Fine. I agree.
I think A;aJede*al Raporters, Inc.l L
from the standpoint of our own practices and extensive public 25
.I 52 gsh 51 j
i i1 0 participation in all affairs --
2j COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think that we should l3hlhave the right to recant on our earlier suggestions, anytime.
I
(
4 They may disagree, thinking our earlier suggestion was great, 5 of course, and I don't know what we'd do then.
6 (Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Mediate.
7, l
8l MR. MALSCH:
Now what's different here, again, is the statement that the purpose of open and advanced planning 9
10 is to promote the early identification and resolution of issues.
11 That may be kind of innocent.
On the other hand, you read this in connection with a later provision in 189 (a), prohibiting 12 13 relitigation of issues.
If they could have been raised in a
([
14 state proceeding, it's possible that the draft was intended by
.this that issues resolved by a state in open and advanced 15 16 planning process, perhaps one in which this is combined (e) with the DOE program, serves to decide issues in our proceedings.
)7 That's not at all clear from the bill, but at least that's a 18 possibility.
39 OMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Maybe that ought to be 20 nade the subject of a number 2 or number 3 comment, in general, g
aith some suggested language to clarify it.
22 1
1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That clearly shouldn t 23 None of the discussions we've had contemplated 24 lae the case.
Acehderal Reportert Inc.lj!the planning process would entall, for example, the kind of 25 4
I l b
4 l
1 l
53
{p gsh 52 i
1l adjudicatory hearing that would let you out of having to 2l face that issue later on in an early site review.
3l MR. MALSCH:
That's right.
We might want to just
(
4 postpone that issue until we get to that relitiga tion para-t 5
graph, because there are various features throughout this i
6' bill that has a bearing on it.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
So that in the relitigatior.
8, paragraph, you just put in that does not include --
9 MR. DIRCKS:
That's a possibility.
10 How about the finding that the generic need for 11 power and the planning would serve to satisfy the need under 12 the ear,1y site provision?
/"
13 You wouldn't want to relitigate that, would you?
5.
14 MR. MALSCH:
Well, that's specific.
That's a l
15 specific sect!.on.
It says that that shall serve the need 16 f r p wer in the site permit.
MR. DIRCKS:
And the need for the facility.
17 What else would come out of advanced planning?
18
- 1 MR. MALSCH:
Well, for example, supposing, as j
jp l
a part of the program, a decision is made on energy type, 20 and the applicant doesn't ask for a site permit.
He just 21 i
asks f r a construction permit.
Then the issue would arise 22 whether, assuming the relitigation provision in here which 23 was r tained in the bill is an accurate one, whether that 24 4. Federal Reporters, l.sc.
uld be litigated in the NRC proceeding.
25 1
Il gsh 53, l
54 1I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's hard to tell from this I
l 2
language whether there's an implication here that you ought 3
not to litigate in our proceedings things that should have Gwu-pl%v 4
been resolved in theg (ima++rbtet.
That may be, but it could be dealt with later on by an explicit disclaimer that that's 5
/ d
~
gt n
ths-MnauditilEh And it may be that this language, that the y6 7
drafters felt that language of this kind was appropriate to indicate the reasons for the open and advanced planning 8
9 requirement on utilities by way of explanction to some of the 10 industry-side people who still take a very conservative view that the utilities' long-range plans are its private business j) 12 and ought not to be required to be discussed openly and s
n.
And this says, come on, this in going to -- you know,
('
13 the reason for this is not to pry into your dark secrets or 34 thwart your ability to manage, but rather to identify issues 15 and allow them to be resolved.
g COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Don't we have to qualify issues and certain kinds of issues.
Somehow, if I understand
)g qv J dah $+ f &l d nd's 9
au m what Marty's saying 6 utrb1E)'.
It's certainly not dealing s
j 39 J'
with safety issues or anything.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, issues which maybe exist with respect to a potential site or facility.
22 l.
23.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm referring to certain kinds of issues.
24 Ached-ci Reparim, Inc.
CHAIREN HENDRIE:
Well, considered in the context 25; i
1
gsh 54 55 I
that it's simply general language to indicate the purpose 2
and thrust of the advanced and open planning, rather than 3.
4 as language preparatory to specific litigation exemptions,
(
4 1
why, I think it - hc [14A
'f}') e l
.p 5
enyvrsq rnu;;RHiftItsfS+ " Problem" is a better word?
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It could be toned down.
^
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This is not an earlier 8
P p
review, you know,g(inauciMeh i
MR. MALSCH:
Well, it could be toned down by, 10 for example, you know, in deleting the resolution or not
~
11 b
say so strongly that in order that thn MnaudibleF may be
]
~
n,/L
_...i t ted
-expedited.
~
13 MR. CASE:
That's what bothers me.
It ties it Id to other proceedings with that last phrase, "in order that 15 any proceeding for a permit or license may be significantly --
a j
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't we just strike the 17 tail-end, then?
18 MR. CASE:
That would make me feel better.
1 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
And the concern,is that, you 1
20 know, that you attempt to take more credit later on than 21 is appropriate to take.
i 22 Why don't we recommend a period after " facility"?
i 4
23 I don't mind " promote early identification" in the resolution, 4
24 actually.
If people can resolve things, why, you know, that's
/4,Jederal Reporters, Inc.
25 splendid.
If you remove any implication that in the advanced
I' 1
,gsh 55 lI 56 l
e
~
1!
planning you're not going to solve all the land use issues 2'
and then limit subsequent review and the possibility of 3l litigation in our proceedings, then I think it's quite an
(
4 innocent --
5 COMMISSIONER KEt?NEDY:
Do we need to explain the 6
point of this change because if you just look at the words 7
that have been deleted --
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
- Yeah, it sounds ---
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It sounds as though we 10 just decided that the purpose of the licensing bill ought not 11 to be --
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
b 13 Why don't you make a note, Bill and Marty, that j
14 in recommending that the tail-end of this thing come off, we're 15 a little concerned that there was an implication here that 16 there might be subsequent, what, exemptions from litigation-I7 in our proceeding by virtue of some of these things, and I 18 don't think that that is the in ten t.
I9 Let's see.
The rest of it runs pretty close to 20 ours?
21 MR. MALSCH:
Yes.
The other difference is that 22 are to publish guidelines -- that's at the bottom of the c
we
\\.
23 Our version didn't have that.
page.
2d COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, I must say if we're 4,4eder l Rewten, sne.
25 going to promote all this, it seems to me that we ought to at
16 57
[
56 i
l i
1l least have some idea of what it is we want promoted and how we I
i.
2 !
want it done.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
How does that keep 3,
,~ ]t w, 1 @ g) 0,sy b )
cLLC i
@audeke-that DOE's going to be doing?
I mean, DOE is 3
s 4
9 5l going to be publishing guidelines and requiring guidelinea and I
all that through the states' early energy planning.
And we're 6
going to be publishing guidelines for the states' early 7
1 8
energy planning, too.
MR. MALSCH:
Yes.
Well, I think that our 9
guidelines would be directed at getting applicants to probably 10 11 participate in DOE or state progrems.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Obviously, we control the 12
(
13 verlap.
CHAIRMAN HEMDRIE:
And the timing, it just says y4 that the guidelines shall be published a minimum of 90 J
15 days before they are to take effect and doesn't put us on
)
a time certain basis. And I think our response would be that 37 w uld propose to tie this to the state-DOE advanced plans w
18 and then step back and let that develop a aittle bit.
j9 f
Now one thing I point out to you is that it 20 says, "the Commission, by rule or regulation, shall establish 4
guidelines for participation in planning," et cetera, "and I
hall establish the requisite priorities for reviewing licenses 23 and permits.
These guidelines and priorities," et cetera.
Ace Fede,al Reporters, Mc.
What it means is that we are being encouraged by 25
S8
,gsh 57 4
)l the Congress in this language --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We are being told by the 2
3 Congress.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Being told by the Congress 4
in this language to decide that applications from utilities 5
that engage in advanced and open planning as per this thing 6
i get better treatment in the licensing process than utilities j
7 that don't.
8-COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What would that mean?
9 They would sit on some applications?
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I guess so.
And we, I believe, jj did not have this in our draft.
et COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :
Is that what means?
g, g
j MR. MALSCH:
Well, we said that up front because 14
,4 the section says up front, "the Commission is authorized and
)
15 j
directed to establish," among other things, "to establish 16
.2mccus.<-
4 priorities in reviewing license applications from4(inaudi-18 So these guidelines really key back into the 19 1
opening language, which is' the same as in our version.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
So this is simply an 21 i
incentive.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But this is an explicit 23 direction to go ahead and establish the requisite priorities Ace Fgdercl Reporters, Inc.
which we've been. authorized to do -- at the top it's permissive.
25
59-gsh 58 4
1 At the bottom, it says, establish priorities, and I'm not sure
~
{
2 MR. MALSCH:
Even the top says, "the Commission 3
is authorized and directed."
(
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, but to do things that 4
it deems necessary or desirable.
Okay?
If we consider it 5
in our infinite wisdom undesirable to establish a set of 6
pri rities which differentiate between applications from 7
utilities that plan openly and those that don't, if we decide 8
that that's an inappropriate basis to establish priorities, 9
we're free to do that.
10 If we're required to establish -- the lower jj langu ge is a little more enforcing.
12 y
es that sentence
(
13 l
need to be there at all?
f// A G ast G
\\
COMMiddiuNER-BRADFORD:
Well, because it gives 1
? 15
\\
^
the publication 90 days to plan a hearings.
') hcJo 'L j
MR. GOSSTCK:
Change the second "shall" to "may."
4 17 i
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Okay.
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If you do that --
)
19
.\\
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE : "And may establish requisite and may establish priorities."
j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay, well if you do that, 22 then it really is redundant with the top of the page.
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes, that's exactly what 24 Ace-Fedorol Reporters, Inc.
fg ggyg, 25
gshL59 60 ji CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Ye's, but it gives something Ii 2'
to hang the direction of 90 days on.
I don't know.
It's l
l, 3!
a one-word type of change that takes some of the sting out.
3 1
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay. Does " requisite" 1
5 mean anything there?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yeah, what does it mean?
6 C
7 MR. MALSH:
It means require. Maybe " appropriate" is better than " requisite."
8 Q</-*
COMMISSIONER ' GItX SKY:
How about just establish 9
Priorities?
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Establish priorities. It's jj I
the most powerful --
12 1
0"""#0*
(
13 j
J COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
By the way.
I presume 14 that they're going to have a section with definitions.
I g
thought that we could indicate some of the items that are i
16 going to be included.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We aren't going to have 18 a section on definitions.
9 MR. MALSCH:
There's is no section on definitions.
COMMISSIONER G.TLINSKY:
Oh, this is it?
This is the total?
22
(
I guess that's what they ought to define:
the 23 standardized design (inaudible).
And then maybe some other Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
ones.
25
.1
61
.gsh 60 q
!i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Should we start a list of those 1
1]
D i
things?
Potential --
7l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess that that 3
includes standardized design. Advanced planning.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD :
Yes, I think that 5
i advanced planning may be one that you're better off not 6
defining at this point, to the extent that you're trying to 7
all w the states the flexibility to --
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Standardized design, thermo-9 neutron power facility or whatever.
10 MR. KELLEY:
The same may be true with standardized j;
design.
Do you think you can define standardized design, Ed?
12 MR. CASE:
No, not in any useful way.
(
33 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
Well, we may decide on reflection of this that the --
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I can see some peril in 16 trying to define that.
(Simultaneous commentary.)
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I look forward to the transcript 19 of the last three minutes with great reluctance. I recommend 20 that it be covered by the simple remark, " Unintelligible."
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, actually, since 22 Je f us Luv.;yv u l G 'w' w' ""'
(.
()
they took the form of two separate meetings A(inaudibl-e), there 23 was no /q, a#wm u r.rel, c
1 9 24 Ac,Jedsrol Reporters, Inc.
(Laughter.)
25
~_
t 62 1
gsh 61' 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Could we have a ruling on it j;
now?
It seems reasonable.
2l l.
3l MR. KELLEY:
That's the way to handle the
(.
lunches; two can talk and two can concentrate on their soup.
4 (Laughter.)
5 3
i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay. Other comments here?
6 MR. MALSCH:
That's all that's different about l
7
\\
I (e).
8 i
Yes, well --
j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
i 9
MR. MALSCH : (f) is a little different.
10 4
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What's different about (f)2 11 l
MR. MALSCH:
I think ours may have referred 12 i
to advanced notice for part of the standardized design, not f
! (
13 just the whole design.
It's probably not a big deal.
14 l'
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me sec.
15 MR. MALSCH:
And they make reference to newspaper i
16 publication and I think that we just had Federal Register 17 publication.
]
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
19
{
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't object t'o the newspapers.
20 It'll run up our advertising bills, but --
21 MR. MALSCH:
You've already got it in spades in the 22 h
rest of the bill.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yeah.
It's consistent with the 24
" AceFederal Reporters, lac.
other provisions, whatever merit that may have.
25 L
. gst;.6 2 63 l
-l 1 !
j COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I'm sure that newspaper J
2!
I I
publishers and editors will probably support the bill.
I 3i MR. CASE:
We publish in major newspapers j
except for an application for approval of a standardized 5
design, and that's the one I would think that you would want the widest publicity forp.ui{g%__ Tla MM*
6 s-j 7
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What major newspapers 8
would you select in such a case?
When we said major newspapers 9
before, they were major newspapers serving the area involved.
a 10 What are you talking about when you talk about a standardized 11 design?
'f(I 0su t
COMMISSIONE4-GI4mcuev.
I guess you'd go to the 13 Times and say --
l (Laughter.)
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There are other newspapers 16 that would have some view on that which is slightly different, I7 I think.
I8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Standard design is I9 excepted from the publication requirement from~ newspapers.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Which leads me to how 2I are you going to find which newspapers?
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There are national news-23 papers.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There are?
, Ace federal Reportees, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The Wall Street Journal.,
1 N'
gsh.63 64 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think you'd have a lot of 2!
trouble with showing compliance with this language if you 3
published in the Wall Street Journal and let it go at that.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
(Inaudible), standardized 5
design.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
This exempts the stan-8 dardized design.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would not have thought 10 that the Wall Stree Journal would have readership which, II however geographic its coverage may be, its readership is not 12 all that pervasive.
(
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, I see what the Eroblem 14 is.
They took up the standard design just because it has 15 a national flavor, and you're then faced with, well, with 16 trying to get a full, natural --
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Subdivision of readership, 18 I guess.
19 (Laughter.)
20 MR. MALSCH:
For whatever it's worth, when we 21 commence the licensing proceeding on plants, we published the 22 notice of hearing in major newspapers all up and down the 23 Atlantic and Gulf coast -- there must have been 1500 newspapers.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If there had been a provision Aes Fedsrol Reporters, Inc.
25 in statutes, Marty, saying in such major newspapers serving the
gsb 64-65 I
If affected areas as may be reasonably calculated to notify 2f concerned or affected persons, do you believe that coverage 3l would have met that, could have stood a challenge that you
(
4 hadn't advertized widely enough?
5 MR. MALSCH:
No.
The only reason why it was 0
feasible for floating plants was that we knew that we were 7
talking about offshore Atlantic and Gulf coasts. So we stuck 8
to major ports, and even then t.here were 15 or 20 newspapers.
9 And we had some hard decisions to make and there wasn't any 10 big deal.
But still, you know --
1I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But if somebody came in 12 for a standardized design of a floating nuclear plant, under
(
13 this language you in fact couldn't.
You'd have some 14 difficulty publishing or (inaudible) to be published.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would think that the 16 Commission would still do it as a --
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'll tell you what.
The 18 problem that I perceive is the problem --
19 MR. MALSCH:
Could it make the applicant (inaudible)-
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's clear that where one is 21 talking about a specific location for a site permit or a 22 construction permit or what have you, that you simply blanket k
23 the region out to 50 or 100 miles away and just, you know, it's 24 not unreasonable to advertize in practically anything with a j
Aco Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 circulation of over a few thousand and maybe down below.
\\
.gsh 45
'l 66 l'
If you're talking about something like a standard design 2
where you're really talking about the whole United States, 3l then you want to be careful that you don't erect a standard in the statute that is going to be very hard to accomplish 5
in terms of this notification.
l So I think it ought to read, rather than as it 1
7 does, "The Commission shall publish the Federal Register 8
and twice in major newspapers serving the affected areas,"
9 that same language, and then add, "except that with respect to 10 an application for approval of a standardized facility design,"
1 11 i
and then some other, some slightly different language that I
12 says that the import of which is to get a good, decent 13 national coverage, but --
I MR. KELLEY:
Reasonably calculated to notify 15 people who may be interested.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, that's the language 17 that's in here now is --
I don't mean the affected area, but 19 in the design itself.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Even if you said several --
2I CllAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Just say several major news-22 papers.
23 I would prefer something like, "and twice in 24 suitable newspapers having national circulation," or something Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 along that line.
gsh 66 67 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let me make a point here.
j ;,
l Let's be careful.
When we say newspapers with national 2
circulation, you've got to realize that those newspapers, 3
(
the Times being read on the West Coast, the Los Angeles Times 4
being read in washington, being read by a very small group f people, are they the people that you're interested in?
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'm interested in having a 7
national notice and not being hung by the statute with a g
I I
standard that I can't hack.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's different.
If you're talking about papers with national circulation, you're talking about papers that are serving a particular area, the Washington Post in Washington, in a very broad way, but outside of Washington it's serving a very, very small 14 specialized population.
And I think that that's not what you're trying to get.
What you're trying to get are major newspapers throughout the country which will assure a broad 17 coverage.
And that's not papers with national circulation.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, yes.
That language might even do it.
20 You know, I can see us going out and saying the 21 notification for standard design is the two or three largest
(
newspapers in each state in the Union.
23 Now if you did that, why, I would think you would 24 Ace-Fedsrol Reporters, Inc.
be in a fair Way tO be able to say that we have provided for 25 L
8 gsh 67 68 I
i 1
broad notification of this proceeding.
Okay?
2i j
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
So major newspapers so 3!
as to assure a broad national coverage, or something to that 4
- effect, j
5
\\
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
Out of this confusion, i
6 do the note-takers perceive that they can get somewhere close?
7 MR. MALSCH:
I think so.
(Pause.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Other differences?
MR. MALSCH:
That's it for (f).
For (g), the 11 last sentence is added.
It was in our bill.
It was taken out 12 of our bill.
It reappeared and disappeared in various 13 incarnations, the fact that "the Commission shall make avail-I4 able to the public information based upon its participation."
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why does it come out?
16 MR. MALSCH:
I think that it was taken out because I7 of industry objections at one point in time about how this 18 202(a) planning process does not involve the public and is 19 not the way to make long-range planning and it ought to be 20 kept at the governmental level rather than having the NRC in 21 there as a sort of spy or something.
22 I suspect that's why it got in and then got out 23 and then got in again.
In our bill it was taken out; at 24 least the last version.
Ace-Fedsrol Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We took it out?
4
I i
.gsh,68 69 d
1l; MR. MALSH:
Pardon?
=
a f
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We took it out?
2 ll i
MR. MALSCH:
Yes.
3
(
3l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What do we see as a dis-i i
5j advantage here from this kind of participation as it's outlined here?
6 MR. CASE:
Well, does it go beyond the (inaudible) 7 a
by that language, necessaril ?
f 8
^a (&f" MR. MALSCH:
-I-t- (l ua udibte ) goes beyond it.
n]7'
[
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And our concern stems from what?
Proprietary information?
MR. MALSCH:
Well, that would be one concern that, 12 for example, somehow, I guess the common complaint would be that the utilities might be disclosing possible sites that they 14 wish to keep nonpublic for the time being.
I believe that j
15 under this section, if we found out about that, we might be under some obligation to disclose it.
17 In fact, we probably would be, the way it's 18 worded.
I guess the concern would be that this would follow up the 202(a) program.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It would seem to me that there 21 1
ought to be no greater burden on the Commission to make public 22 2
activity any information tha t occurred to it because of this 23 than there is on the primary _ participants in that activity.
24 I Ae.Jeawo!qpoem.W.!
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think if you put in the
- .s :
F
70 gsh'd9*
'l ll
'i
)j Commission and DOE should make available, you then find out i
It's what they were and what they weren't preparec 2h (inaudible).
1 a
to live with, 3
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, the Commission and all i
4 ;!
i other parties.
MR. KELLEY:
Or if you just left it out, you're 6
l 7l still subject to (inaudible).
1 CllAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would think so, and it would 8,
seem to be that it would be adequate.
9 ONER KENNEDY:
But what Marty says, 10 Marty is arguing that, indeed, this goes beyond --
MR. MALSCH:
Oh, I think it does.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The Freedom of Information.
(
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yeah, I think it eliminates 14 the exemption.
As a sort of a level 1 comment, at most 2, I'd 16 be inclined to say why put that sentence in?
17 It would seem to me that if in participating in 18 these programs we learned dark secrets which --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, these programs 20 have something like a 20-year lease on them anyway.
So it 21 just seems to me that if this legislation passes, there 22 aren't going to be too many secrets, or too many meaningful 231!n 4
secrets.
24
^" N *m'Poo"'" %
MR. KELLEY:
The one that occurs is the land 25 !.
d a
h!
4
71 Ush J,0, 1
b acquisition problem, right?
(Inaudible) to try to quietly I
2; l
buy up a site.
And they may want to tell us about that in 3:
j a meeting, but they don't want the information going to the 4\\
public.
u, 5"
MR. KELLEY:
But they're now committed to a --
i 6 1 they don' t even want to buy it up in advance of going through I
i 7;
i the public planning.
il 1
8>
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Maybe.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or get options on the land, 10l at least.
I lit COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
They don't have to tell i
12 l
us about that.
At that stage, they can do it without telling 4
I 13 anybody.
14' MR. KELLEY:
They would just say, we're going to 15 have one up in this general area, without saying which farm 16 it involves.
l I7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, they don't even have 18' to tell us.
Generally, at that point you're talking about j
I9 before the open and advanced planning that comes before the 20 (inaudible).
i 2l CHAIRMAN HEt;DRIE:
Do I have a strong move --
1 i
i 22 I would suggest that we reconmend on a low-key basis that l
23' the last sentence come off.
l I
24 '
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Or tpat if it stays in, Inc.;f
~
Ace Federel Reporta,$,
25 it apply to DOE as well.
i i
a 72 Ush f7L l
1 h CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or that if it stay in, it 1
2 i be clearer that it applies to everybody.
i 3l I don't want to be told on the one end to 1
I participate, and then become the only participant who is a 4
5h f reed conduit for all information to the public.
That would 6lI seem to me --
Now, I have a recommendation which I regard as 7l 8l a highly meritorious one.
It says that since we have a lunch at 12 :00 sharp, we are -- it's now 11: 30.
We're at the end 9;
f the section.
We're about to start on what will be a 10 discussion not easily terminated or closed, and fairly, a
- )
people need a chance to go and make phone calls and so on.
g Why don't we quit now and reconvene.
Let's see,
- {
13 are we scheduled to reconvene this afternoon?
We are, indeed, y
at 2:00.
Let me -- let's see.
15 1
Our configuration for this afternoon's exercise 16 is that we have social Innch, I guess, and then you and I i
17 are going to meet visitors at -- will we be sending them down to --
)
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I will have said hello 20, and -- the purpose is to get a chance to meet the new 21 commissioners.
So they will ply you with all manner of serious 22; 23{,
questions.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
One-by-one.
24l AceJeJcol Reporms, Ire.l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It's possible.
25!
k i!
1 Il
.t
73 gsh 72 4..
1l CliAIRMAN llENDRIE :
Or two-by-two.
l Okay, may we have 3
MR. KELLEY:
We regard the 2:00 as a resumption i~
4 of the same meeting that we were doing today.
5 CIIAIRMAN liENDRIE :
All right, fair enough.
6 (Whereupon, at 11:30 p.m.,
the morning discussion finish was concluded.)
8 10 l
11 12 4
(
13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 l
t 21 i
i 22 J
23 24
. rie ri nt n nart. i ne.
25
.