ML20147C674
| ML20147C674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/20/1977 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147C657 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7812180368 | |
| Download: ML20147C674 (106) | |
Text
i
.' ,' (')
v .
1 CR 5311 I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
. BUD:ro 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, tapes 3
( 4 i l 1
i 5 COMMISSION MEETING ;
6 l l
l 7 e 1 i
Licensing Reform 8
9 10 1717 H Street, N.W. l 11 Room 1130 Washington, D. C. l 4
12
)
Thursday, 20 October 1977 '
/.. 13 s
Id The meeting in the above-entitled matter was convened, 15 pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m.
BEFORE:
I7 Chairman Joseph H. Hendrie Commissioner Victor Gilinsky 18 Commissioner Richard T. Kennedy Commissioner Peter A. Bradford 39 Mr. Martin Malsch, OELD Mr. James L. Kelley, Assistant General Counsel Mr." William J. Dircks Mr. Edson G. Case i 21 Mr. Albert Kenneke, Office of Policy Evaluation I i
22 i i
4 4 The initials appearing in the lefthand margin, i.e., WW and JB 7'3
! indicating corrections, are those wrew nm,nm,pc,!
of Wm. White and Jake Brown 25 Office of the Secretary.
{ Reviewed 12/5/78 i 781218c>36%
~ ~ ~ ' ' '
2 CR 53L1 N'RC '
f
. k' ape *1 1 l i
{RQgggglEQE CHAIRMA:2 HENDRIE: Let's sec, we have a quorum.
2 Why don't we go ahead. This is another meeting in the long 3
(
4 series on licensing legislation. We.will run until about 11:30 and then break and come back to it tomorrow morning.
5 We've gotten up to, what, page 21.
6 We've got papers stacked up on the right. If 7
we an nd page . eah, we were in Ge m h of M s 8
9 section.
MR. MALSCH: We had reached up to but didn' t 10
)) quite get to number 3 at the bottom of the page.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. Okay. We had already g
( decided.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You're on page 34?
, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We're about to take a final vote 15 i I
on the amendments as'--
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Great. I have a list of 17 l ayes.
18 !
l l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We have already decided that 19 l ~
in terms- of the notice time specifications which run throughout l
i
- this section, we would go back to an outline more similar 21 i I
1 to the one that we had previously. Typically, 180 days on t' 22 l everything except an amendment where there was a good reason 23 i i to keep it at 30 and even to post notice, as we do now, where 24 %
- Me Federot Reponen. Ir. l no significant Safety issues arise. We decided, among other 25 h n
li k
9sh 2, 3 o .
4 I
1
- matters, we decided to strike the word " factual" mattern as 2
- a limitation, not out of doubt of the merits of dealing with
/ factual matters, but out of doubt of our ability to define 4
it adequately, I guess.
5 And also we're going to delete, let's see, the 6
exemption for matters in state proceedings?
7 MR. MALSCII: Right.
8 CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE: Okay. So now, in part, we've 9
gotten to the bottom of page 21, but in part, we've gone 10 beyond it.
I MR. MALSCH: That's right.
I2 CIIAIRMAN HENDRIE: So, okay. Let's proceed now
( 13 with the other. items which differ in this hearing scope I4 section from our previous draft language.
15 MR. KELLEY: Would this be the place to put in 16 some explicit language '; hat this does not apply to the early 17 planning stage, this foreclosure of relitigating matters?
18 MR. MALSCH: Well, I think that you're already 19 covered it. If you take out "or a state," I think that that l 20 !takescareofit.
I 21 CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE : Right. I think that that was
( 22 the --
t 23 l MR. MALSCII: Two issues arise immediately because i
24 of the language at the bottom of page 21. <First of all, this teef edero! Reportert in:. -
25[ is a so-called track 3 hearing scope, where your reference 1
I
1
' ' c.fu h ' 3,, ' 4 I 8
fusffuv
- g 9 I Gnettdttrie) site and design, and they confine that in this
. /
1 2 version, again, to thermonautron power generation facilities 3 versus our production or utilization of sets of demonstration
- I 4 projects.
5 So, again, they have taken out of this so-called
.i . e 6 track 3 breeder reactors, research reactors, reprocessing
{
7 plans, enrichment plants.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I keep being afraid that 1
9 we're not going to license research reactors at all any more 1 10 if we keep pursuing this through the bill, i a 4
.' 11 MR. MALSCil: We're safe in that regard because t. hey
- 12 haven't done that for the other crucial sections.
7
-Q COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Okay, I see.
l 13 l l
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: -Let's see, for reasons of a
- 15 little greater flexibility, we retain production utilization l l
- 16 facilities in this language, and that's the way it's read )
17 in previous drafts going back several years, I would assume.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: From the beginning.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Inclination of the Commission?
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I'd put it in.
1 21 CilAIRMAN llENDRIE: Suggest P and U.
3 22 ,
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: P and U except for now, i 1 (
l 23 !
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Instead of thermoneutron.
24 l It would get to the point where we i
don' t ' have any more 4
N *,.Federot Re.porrut in, 25 j thermoneutron --
i
. lj k
- _
- _ ;; ~ .
~
gsh:4 5 I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Thermoneutron (inaudible).
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It seems to me that one
/
i S.
of these (inaudible) quite true of production and utilization 5 facilities.
i l 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It's at least classic.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What is now an enormous I
8 body of law which says what it is --
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The only person who knows 10 is Joanna Becker, and she's not even here.
II (Laughter.)
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I know her address in Vienna. I
( 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I spoke to her and she j 14 indicated that she was free at any time to provide advice, 15 should we ask for it. And she guaranteed that it would not 16 be a conflict of interest.
17 CHAIRMAN ~ENDRIE: Any inclination to leave thermo- i 18 neutron or go back to P and U does save us from having to 19 exclude research reactors.
20 COMMISSIONER C 1 SKY: Well, it does sort,of I
21 bring in fuel cycle facilities. Let's think about that. Does
{ 22 l that pose any problem or does that change the rules? I 23 guess it would change the rules of the construction permits.
_, 24 j MR. MALSCH: Well, the questi,on is whether you'd Acehd,rcl Reporters, inc. [
23d expect to see some coming in for onrly site permits or h
1 l
- l. o
u: -
gsh.5 i 6-4
[
6 l
1 standardized designs.
2 MR. CASE: Or'if you combine CP and OLs for l 1
l 3 f reprocessing plants and enrichment plants. ,
(. I 4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I think that there's 5 certainly merit in early site reviews for a f acili ty of .that 6 kind for just the came reason that there's merit in an early 7 site review for the power-generating facilities.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, what you're saying l
9 is that the hearing wouldn't be mandatory. Does anybody g 10 want to basically. (inaudible) 1 11 MR. MALSCH: Well, that's true generally in the !
12 bill, as amended. The difference would be that if you include
( 13 ur language as opposed to the DOE draft language, you end 14 up with a narrower scope of hearings than CPOL stages than 1
15 y u would ordinarily have, and that's to take account of the 16 fact that you preapproved the site and the plant design.
37 MR. CASE: Of the full scope of this.
jg MR. MALSCH: Yes.
39 ,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I'd recommend that we use the Production and utilization, and suggest it not as a table- l 20 21 j p unding matter but --
MR. CASE: Well, we do have research reactors
- ,~ 22
, that have combined -- the only ones that really have the CP
! 2 1b f G kl d di o e
b 24 ! and OL combinedf-Mnemlkle-) r ,
Ace & demi R owtm. inc.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: At the same time, you're 25 -
f i
. ll .
g,sh 6, 7
. , i
~l I not opposed to not have pre-approved sites? l 1
2 MR. CASE: No, but unless you've got research
, l 3 reactors in here that wouldn ' t permit a combined -- 1 I I MR. MALSCH: No, this is just a track 3. We're 5 using the pre-approved site and a pre-approved design. l 6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD : Why don't you say, 7 thermoneutron power generation facility or regearcl3 reactor? l
,d%ud x dm '
(' fj 8 MR. MALSCH: You co ldgfinand b facility 9 other than demonstration projects. That would , well --
l I
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, if you don't-11 really need it for a research reactor, then I don't see what's 12 wrong -- yeah, I think realistically nobody's going to be on 13 track 3 for a fuel cycle facility for' quite a while. But I 14 don't know why we'd want to raise that spectre.
15 MR. KENNEKE: You're not going to have a designed 16 approved unless you require both site and design.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, you know, somehow 18 ; speeding up the licensing of reprocessing facilities raises l
19 all kinds of questions, whether or not it has anything practical 20 , significance. And if nothing else, it's going to get a lot ti 21, of people excited.
. 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I don't mind.
i 23 t
Let's see --
24 MR. MALSCH: We could make it, utilization facility,
- w,erci necesm. He l 25 g except demonstration projects. That would include h
i!
- 1 t! - -
8 gsh 7 t
i I reprocessing' plants.and the enrichment plants and would include 2 in all reactors except demonstration pro jects.
3 MR. KENNEKE: Somewhere you're going to need to 4 describe all of these statements, i 5 MR. DIRCKS: Could you have a' demonstration project in a plant which isn't a standardized facility?
2 6
, f & lev ~#
7 MR. MAI SCH: I can't imagine (-ieend slebr-i )
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Oh, I see, then the j 9 f acility design is approved?
i i
- 10 MR. MALSCH: Right.
II COMMISSIONER GILINSKY; So, suppose you just l
- 12 said utilization facility. ;
i
[ 13 MR. MALSCH: You could do that.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY; That would seem to deal ;
l 15 with all. 1 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see. There's nothing 1 l
f 17 in this language which prevents you from doing, from using 18 the early site review and getting a site permit.
19
' MR. MALSCH: No.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE : And saying -- now what I'm j
21 talking about for this site is a fuel cycle facility with
! 22 a processing plant, but you aren't going to have a pre-approved 23 standard design to slap on it eventually, but you would like l 74 to get a site penait for it. )
ec Federal Reporters, Inc, Can that be done?
25 i.l i
i I
i~ l !
'9 gsh 8, ;
1 s
I' MR. MALSCH: Well, again, this language, when you 2 get to the site permit section, again, I think it talks about 3 thermoneutron.
CHAIRIUtN HENDRIE: Okay. So that would be the 5 l place to broaden the language to allow the early site review l
6 of these.other facilities in this place -- we're talking about j
(
7 the track 3, the expedited track 3.
8 In that case, why don't we just leave it?
i I
9 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Or change it to utilization I 10 facility.
I1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Oh, al1 right.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Which would take care of 13 any kind of a reactor.
14 MR. CASE: But I also think that you would change una d'<c d erw AM-15 the language described on page 15 to wh$teverffinaud-iblet,~
16 (Simultaneous discussion.)
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, that problem is 17 18 raised by any kind of reactor.
19 Marty, is a reactor a production facility, too?
MR. MALSCH: If it's a production reactor, like 2C 21 a Hanford would be --
i i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY : But every reactor produces !
/ 22 >
4 23:. lf P utonium.
l I
li Yes.
MR. MALSCH: ,
24 l j Atefeevel Reporten, Mc. i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That doesn't make it a 23 ;l l
i __j
gsh 9 10 1 production facility?
2 MR'. MALSCH: No. It's got to be designed for the 3 production of -- its principal purpose --
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: !!ere 's a real opportunity.
5 (Laughter.) -
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Just start naming things.
7 MR. MALSCH: There are definitions in part 50 8 that must have been in there since 1954. They pretty well 9 understood what's what.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But nobody can tell me 11 what the admiral's up to in Pennsylvania under those definitions 12 MR. MALSCH: We've (inaudible) the utilization,
( 13 so at least they'll know whether it's thermal or not.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That had to go through 13 (inaudible).
16 But you also don't know whether it's production 17 or not, jg MR. MALSCH: No, it's the utilization facilities.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFv2D: Why isn't it production?
20 MR. MALSCH: It's built for power.
21 I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Its purpose is to produce 1
22 p w r.
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But it's also a breeder.
23 24 So its purp se is also to produce fuel. ,
Ace Federal Reporters. Inc.
25 MR. MALSCH: We license a breeder reactor (inaudible)
! - J
i l'0 ', 11 I as a utilization facility.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: A reprocessing plant is l
3 a production facility?
4 MR. MALSCH: A production facility and an I 1
1 5 enrichment plant is a production facility. The Hanford.or 6 Savannah type production reactor.is a production facility.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: If the Fermi 1 was a 8 utilization facility, why don't we stay with the language tha t 2
9 you've got right here?
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Fermi 1 was a utilization 11 facility?
12 MR. MALSCH: It was a breeder-reactor, l'
\. 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I guess the argument
- 14 would be that Fermi l could never qualify under this section.
i 15 MR. MALSCH: That's right. It wouldn't be a f
16 thermalneutron power generation.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's right, it's not.
jg COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I guess that I just find i
jp thermoneutron power generation facilities sort of an awkward 20 term, but maybe that describes all that we want to do.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I don't know enough about 21 ,
l l it to know whether that's an awkward term or not, since it's 22 il 23 j n t one you run across in most ' schoolbooks.
I 24 j MR. CASE: That's one definit, ion.
i A:e f ederal Reporters, Inc. .
25 j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It just seems to me to be l
L
gsh : . 12
. . l 1
l 1 unnecessary to appear to extent this action, regardless of l i
2 I what the technical realities are at the moment. l 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, we're really talking I
(
4 about white water reactors and conceivably (inaudible). I i
'5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Can do a thermonautron l 6 power generation facility?
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yeah.
8 MR. DIERCKS: It would have to be a standardized 9 design.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, it looks like it'll 11 be around for a while.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: For the near term it's certainlv 13 true that we're talking about LWOs only and the broadening 14 for gas reactors to thermal power generation facilities is-15 kay -- I bet you're right; the act will be around.
There is a coupling between -- it has to be *4 16 j7 a standard design to go into this section and that provides jg a very considerable protection. Not only does it have to be
]
)9 a standard design, but it has to be one approved by the 20 Commission under rules that we would presumably make.
I'd be inclined to say a utilization facility, 21 i
2, i but I'm not very strong on it.
3"-
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I would simply, because I 23 l
- l hate to introduce,.unless there's some very, very important i 24 A:eJederal Reporters. 'ne. ! ,
25 q reas n to do so, new language, given the history of 20 ye,,rs 1
l
^
s
gsh 17 13-0 B I or 25 years, of the legislation which this is amending. One 2 doesn't want to just change language that has specific 3 understood meaning in all manner of litigation that's gone 4 before, all manner of regulations that now exist, unless there's 5 really some cogent reason to do so. So I'd stick with words 6 like " review."
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I'd agree with that in 8 principle, but the substantive question is whether, in fact, 9 you want to include everything that the term " utilization" --
10 I'm no* suggesting changing the definition of " utilization 11 facility." I'm just raising the question of whother utilization 12 f acility is really the term that describes ' we want to
(' 13 exten'd track 3 to.
~
14 I agree with you, Joc. mcern isn't a 15 very practical one because I don't think that standardized 16 breeder reactors are (inaudible).
37 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. I look t'o the standardiza- I 18 tion to the fact that the design has to be an approved jp standard design as the control on what comes down thi.s track, 20 rather than the enumeration of the kind of facility that's 21 considered.
- 22 MR. KENNEKE: That's where you had limitations t j 23 n thermoneutron in the standard design section.
l-l 24 l That's pushing them back. That would control Ace f ederal Reporters, Inc, l 25 : wha te 7ent through there --
l n
h u_
gsh 13 '
14 l ; COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It's that limitation stage.
=
2 l But I take it if we're removing thermoneutral because we 3 don't like the term, it isn't going to stay in 194 or (inaudiblo).
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes,'but I thinx that's right.
5 i I think that Peter is right. I think we'll be discussing i
l 6 whether we want to open up theirs.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, if we're keeping it --
8 i f it's going to end up staying in the bill, there's no harm )
l 9 ' in leaving it here. l 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That's right. I think that we .
l 11 may find that we needed some place.
12 COMMI.SSIONER GILINSKY: Let's leave it for a 13 moment.
ja COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's on page 32. It 15 says, you know, you can authorize rule-making or licensing 16 proceeding which hearing shall be (inaudible). It may approve 37 a design for thermal neutron power generation facilities. )
18 Let's think about it. If it says that back there, jp no matter what it says in this section on page 21, all you can 20 d , all y u can apply this section to is the thermal neutron 21 Power generation facility.
~
S it doesn't make any difference what it says 22 f
23 here.
ll.
l :
24 So just leave it the way it gas.
Ace Fedtrol Reporters, Int.
25 ' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don' t we leave it as it is?
1
gsh'14 15 j 1
i 1
1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The one on standard 1
2 design?
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yeah.
[
4 If it says that.on 32, you might just as well 5 leave it thermoneutron power generation facility here. It 6 doesn' t make any difference.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's leave it as a practical 8 matter. Why, that will certainly suffice for the next 3.85 9 years.
10 (Laughter.)
11 ,
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's enough for you?
12 (Laughter.)
j,3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. The next item of difference 14 in this section that we would want to --
15 MR. MALSCH: Okay. 'The next one is a good one.
16 They committed a blooper here. Thev allowed you to issue on 37 under this provision in so-called track 3 a noncolabined 18 construction permit, or noncombined operating license, because 39 they say the Commission may issue a CPOL or a combined CPOL.
20 However, later on, in defining the options for hearing, they f rg t to pick up the noncombined licensing, with the result 21 l
7' 22 . that under the DOE draft as it presently stands, there is s
n pp rtunity for hearing at all, any place on track 3 at 23 i '
I At,Jederol Reporters. Inc.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That's unintended, you 25 lI
- t. _ _
= :-- - - -
16 gsh 15, I think?
2 MR. MALSCH: I suspect that i t's unintended.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I noticed the same thing.
(
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: How splendid.
l 5 (Laughter.)
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No opportunity for a hearing 7 at-a -1.--- 4 Inaudible)- and I think they 've found a way.
8 How about reviewed? Does it say or till the 9 Commission review?
10 MR. MALSCH: They didn't say that.
Il CHAIRMAN HENDRIE : I guess that they leave that ,
12 to rule-making.
( 13 MR. MALSCH: It doesn't make a.' sense because 14 under that scheme, there's more of a review and more of an 15 opportunity for a hearing with the combined CP and OL contract 16 than there is for a noncombined CP or OL, and that makes 17 no sense at all.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: May I judge the sense of the 19 Commission is that you ought to fix that. We ought to fix it. <
20 MR. MALSCH: I guess the thing to do is to make 21 it consistent for both the combined and the senarate in terms pu Nwu.- ' cbs$dc ,,
f 22 ,
of the hearing opportunity, whatever wau. 4
( l ua uu mle-}~.
s 1:2 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see. The combined has 23 l i
24 .the feature, in general, that we try to erect at the point AttJ ederal Feporters,1%
25 >
where the machine is ready to go into operation and where
gsh 16 17 1
I staff checks it out and we make a finding that it's built as 2 in accordance with the design we egreed to and the inspection 3 peoplo inspect it and say it's all tuilt and ready to go and
, t 4 so on.
5 Now at that point for a combined CPOL, we issue ;
1 4
6 a notice that it's getting ready to go into operation. We've 7 extended that notice to 180 days. We offer the opportunity l 8 for a hearing, but with a threshold which says new information 9 -for which --
t i 10 MR. MALSCH: New information or issue or violation A. h .8) 2, I I gives M-naudible-)- the substantial issue.
4 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yeah. And I think that that
(" 13 threshold for the combined should remain in; whereas, for 14 a thing that goes CP and then OL, I don't, you know, it's
. 15 sort of what's Cifferent from --
1 4 16 MR. MALSCH: I think our bill had essentially the 17 same standard.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Threshold.
4 j 19 MR. MALSCH: Threshold. For both noncombined
]
20 ;
and combined under track 3.
I 21 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That's because it's a standardized; l
22 design?
1 :l 1
-23 : COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: These are all star.dardized ga . designs? i 1.
Ate-f edemi R+ porters. Inc. l 25 l MR. MALSCH: These are all standardized designs.
h i _a
gsh.17- i 18 i
t
! 1 They have also changed the threshold here --
'2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Presumably, i f you ' re 3 coming in for a separate CP, you don't have a final design.
(
4 MR. MALSCH: That's right.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So at the final design 6 stage --
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You would get to litigate 1
4 8 anything which had not, you know, anything which had been
, 9 said, well, this is preliminary at the CP stage. You would ;
\
10 now have new information which is pertinent to safety. I
, I 11 think that you have a free ride on that. l s )
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You should have more of a
(- 13 chance there than -- l j 14 MR. MALSCH: That's right.
15 MR. CASE: By the very nature you have more of 16 a chance.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, I see. You don't need a difference in the language as to the threshold, but what 18 19 happens is that where you've only done a preliminary design 20 in the CP stage, at the OL stage you necessarily have new inf rmati n which is significant to safety and just rides 21
. right through the --
22 3 23
"' ^' "' " Y ' ' "
l 24[o threshold at the r,ncombined OL stage only applied if you A e f eJeral Reporte s, Inc l had improved final design. So it was possible under our bill
- l' 1 i ._
=- -~ - - - - - - _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.19 l
'gsh 18 2 . . ,
1 4
I to get, in effect, track 3 at the CP stage because you'd l
- 2 referenced an' improved similar design. Just go back like to 3 track 1 at the OL stage because you hadn' t gotten improved l(
f 4 . final design, the theory being that , obviously, if you haven't I
l '
5 got an improved final design jou should be able to get the 6 opportunity to litigate the final design-at the OL stage.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I can see in the profession l
i 8 a licensing guide, i
9 (Laughter.)
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I believe it'll be a success
! 11 with the legal profes ion.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yeah, I'm sure they'll b ('
13 (inaudible). '
14 MR. MALSCH: I think that configuration is what i 15 we want, isn't it?
4 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Sure. That makes sense.
MR. MALSCH: I'd like to think that they would
> 17 18 have put that in there is they'd realized what they were 19 doing. .
' MR. KENNEKE: Marty, in effect, what you're 20 .
-v . xxy 4 -r udi-14e-)--+tt the bottom of page 22 just to add CP, comma,
).21 4 yy OL?
\
MR. MALSCH: Essentially, that's about what it 23 1
amounts to. We'll have to be careful about the language, 24 .
- AceJederol Repo ters, Inc.
25 ji but that's essentially what we would have to do.
3
gsh 19' !
20 I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. I think it's clear 2 Please fix .it to -- okay. I that that's what we want to do.
3 Now, and'what else in this section? I l
( l
- Also, in effect, expanded the scope MR. MALSCH: f i
5 of the hearing at the CP stage in track 3, whereas we had , f 1
6 confined the hearing to special circumstances. They have l 1
7 a much broader standard that simply talks about a prima facie 1
8 showing the construction end or operation would create a l 9 significant risk to the public health and safety or the 10 environment, and that the issuance of the combined permit Il license could not comply with the act or rules and regulations 1
12 of the Commission, which is the whole ballgame.
Il But then, again, it's cut back somewhat by the 14 probation on the relitigation.
15 .The not effect is, I think, that, two things: l 16 One, in our bill, certain kinds of issues couldn't have been 17 raised at all because they didn't deal with interface. Probably l
18 things like financial qualifications. It was no big deal.
jm ALur.-tdud 19 But they probably could notg (inaudible)-at all in our bill.
20 In this version they could. Secondly, in our bill, you could I 21 not raise in th. construction permit proceedings 2neric 22 issues regardini the design or issues regarding the site.
f.
23 The proper place tc raise those was in the earlier proceedings.
24 Under this version, you could raise those kinds ct issues in AceJoderal Reporten, int. j the construction permit proceeding if you met the threshold.
25 ]
f<
[ !
21 gzh
=
20 I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The threshold being --
2 MR. MALSCH: Being prima facie showirg that 3 construction or operation would create a signficiant additional 4 risk to the public health and safety. So it's broader. The l
/ fv
, 5 .M..nau4 ,di . lek hearing here is broader than in our bill.
6 MR. KELLEY: What does happen to financial 1 7 qualifications?
8 MR. CASE: You don't d~ it in the early site f 9 review, do you? You don' t do it in the standardized design?
1 10 You do' it here. The staff would do it here, i
11 in any event.
12 MR. MALSCH: Yeah, in either case the Commission, 13 as an agency, would do it. But under or bill it could not he raised as a hearing issue in track 3. Under this version, 14 l 15 you could raise it as a hearing issue, conceivably.
i *- rJp' 16 It also allows you, in effect, to reopen the 17 site permit and the manufacturing license or rule approval.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It (inaudible) the 19 effect of going through all of those proceedings in the first 20 place, or could.
MR. MALSCH: It could. I think the effect of 21
( 22 it' is since it's confined to -- you're talking about significant l
s 23 risk. The difference is under our version, if someone complained about a signficant risk, it would go to 1.he director of NRR 24 Ace 4 sderal Reportert to:.
dV' 25 to institute a proceeding to amend th site 7(1d+.
imandh-* k)- t-( _
, q t
f- C
g,sh 21 22 9
1 manufacturing license where the Commission has more control 2
and discretion. In this version it would go to the tribunal, 3
presiding, or licensing board and it would have to be dealt with
(
4 as a hearing issue.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Let's face it. It's 6
going to go to that tribunal whether we like it or not.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Peter, this is one that we 8
discussed with them. You remember when we were running down 9
//m&pdd-L &
<7 - l (J nnnaib$el chart and we agreed on balance that it was a toss-up 10 which one of these versions was likely to be most workable 11 and reasonable to all parties, and I think we came down --
I've got their version circled, so I think we must have thought, l 13 well, on balance, that, you know, if the- can cross the 14 threshold, then the broader, you know -- it might be a fair 15 proposition to --
16 @l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Who defines "significant l
I7 risk"?
18 MR. MALSCH: The Commission would define it.
I9 Of course if it's subject to review, in this case the courts 20 would define it.
2I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's exac tly the point.
Ci w dbwc4 a' ;
( p 22 ]
MR. KELLEY: (-I-namiiN.#) significant change in the 23, thrust.
I !
24' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's,right. Exactly.
Au f sderal Repor9rs,' inc,
]
25 i So if you're going to introduce that question 4
__- _ _ _ _ _ _ .i - _
gsh 22. 23 I essentially twice, you're 5 ing to litigate the whole business 2
at least twice. l 3 MR. MALSCH: Well, remember now that the.prohibitica
- i d of litigation also apolics here. So for practical purposes, 5 wu're talking about new information since the prior proceeding.
i 6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But also, haven't we 3
i 7 talked about the necessity of introducing information at 8 the appropriate point? And not having done so, stops you
' i
. I 9 i from doing it later. l IO l But that applies.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
l Il COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That doesn't apply.
12 CHAIFdUsN HENDRIE: Yes, it does.
a 13 MR. MALSCH: No ,- that would still appl; here 14 because the general prohibition --
i .
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That's a general prohibition.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Now let me suggest that' i
17 the whole thing, it seems to me, is increasingly confusing.
18 What, then, is the real effect of this prevision?
19 i MR. MALSCH: It allows you -- let's say there's ---
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Find me a case in which i
21 l this would arise.
I r 22 l MR. MALSCH: Okay. Someone comes across a new 23 ; issue or a new bit of information about the standardized i
24 f design that applies generically. ,
k, Federcl Reportus Inc, f COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : Which firs t he - well, 25 f
.e ..
g$h 23, 24 I if it applies generically -- it's a new issue he didn't know 2 anything about.at the earlier point but which does apply 3 generically, and which is determined by somebody to be 4 significant and involve a significant risk.
l 5 MR. MALSCH: Now under our bill -- l 1
1 6 MR. CASE: Then he car litigate it.
7 MR. MALSCH: Now under our bill, the only way l
8 for him to litigate that would be to go to the director of 9 NRR or the Commission and say, hey, institute a proceeding 10 to amend your earlier rule approving standardized design. I 11 He couldn't raise it before the board. Under this bill, he 12 could raise it before the board.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: If he went to the director 14 of NRR, under ocr bill, it would not interfere with the 15 licensing process which would be proceeding, these proceedings, 16 whichever ones they were, would be going on.
17 MR. MALSCH: That's true.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But his relief would be 19 essentially the same.
20 MR. MALSCH: That's right. Well, I think the 21 Commission would be pretty hard pressed to issue the construction
[v 22 l permit under trach 3 with a significant unresolved issue i
23 ,
about the designs still pending. But they would be separate i
24 l' proceedings, in th2ory, going along in par'allel.
, Ate. Federal Reporters, W, I
-25 0 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : Yeah. As I say, the relief
!I 1
li
gsh 2,4 "
25 i I would be the same.
2 MR. MALSCH: That's right. Also, the difference is --
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But the delay factor in
(
4 the proceeding would be less under our bill, or likely so.
5 MR. MALSCH: That's not clear. It's hard to say.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't think that you could 1
7 go with the original, with the particular proceeding. You ,
! l 8 certainly couldn't get to a decision until you had reopened I
9 the generic one. Once you reopen the generic one, why, you 10 might have some trouble getting it closed.
Il MR. MALSCH: Well, I think the problem would be 12 a practical one, having the same person participate in two 13 parallel proceedings going along at the same time. I think 14 as a practical matter, you'd be pretty hard pressed to run 15 them in parallel.
You'dprobably[enduprunningthemin
[a E) o ci t
16 series. I think what you lose infa--(-ieaudible) draft is that 17 in our version, the Commission has a gre ater measure of 18 control over institution of the proceeding to amend because l
19 lit'smoreorlessamatterofdiscretiontoinstituteanew I
20 l proceeding. Under this version, it goes directly to the ASLB 21 l and I think that the control of the process beginning is 22 a little less.
,/
- l l I think that that's really about all that you lose.
23o l0 24 h COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: On bala,nce, I would prefer F
o Fehrol Reporters, int 25; our own proposal (inaudible)..
b tv
L____ .-
26 gph 25' I I think it's marginally better.
2 CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE : Yes. As I remember the f I
l 3 , discussion that Peter and I had with the FEA folks, why, we
-( l 4 argued back and forth to discern the relative merits of these 3
4 5 two things.
l 6 MR. CASE: This would probably make me feel better.
7 Let's ass'ume that I found a new significant safety issue that 8 changed adequacy of that rule.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You would rather go to a 10 l board.
4 l 11 MR. CASE: Well, I would be in a terrible position i
if I was bound by the rule and the only way I could change it 12 j .
\~
~ 13 was to go back to you in a rule-making proceeding, while at 14 the same time I've got witnesses up saying, it's all right.
Follow the rule. It must be all right. This gives me an 15 16 avenue in the proceeding that I ordinarily would not have.
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think as a practical matter --
17 18 ,
why don' t we go with he DOE language on this? Okay?
t jp Next item.in here.
f MR KELLEY: Is the Chair entertaining stvlistic 20 21 comments?
MR;MALSCH: I have been raising really minor f 22 j 23 i things.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't, yeah -- what 24 A:e.Feheat R,,,orrers ine !
25
! w 're lo king for, we've got two guys taking notes so that, h
'l
)
gsh 2.6 27 l
j hopefully, the comments and decisions are being collected in i
2 a way and there be a reply back to OMB and why don't you feed the style stuff right into that process?
3 ^l.l
\ '
If we get the Commission involved with style, 4
why, that will confuse the issue probably substantially, 6
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Despite the fact that it 1 7 ,
would probably improve the product. ,
.8 1
, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I wouldn't argue that those 1 9
ngs were mutually exclusive.
10 (Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. Onward with other (I things in this section that we're in and that we ought to comment on.
14 Does that pretty well clean it up?
15 MR. MALSCH: That cleans up up to 4 on page 24.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. Now on 4, we're doing 17
. wha t?
18 l MR. MALSCH: That, I think, is interim operating 19 license, in terim licensing.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. At this point we talk 21 j about hearing scope and notice on interim licensing and in f 22 the next one we'll get to talk about interim licenses 23 f L'themselves. Okay? #
24 i Ae,. Federal Reporters,' Inc - MR. MALSCH: That's right.
l-25.4 c
. =.. -
b
' 28 go,h 27-1 CIIAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, let's --
l 2 COMMISSIONER BIMDFORD: Could I just ask a 3 question on page 23? We're told that a violation arising or 4 occurring after the most recent licensing action -- why is I
~5 that limitation there? Supposing the violation occurred before l 6 the most recent licensing action and wasn't discovered until 7 afterwards.
8 Is that a possibility? l MR. MALSCH: I don't think so. I think they're l 9 l l 10 talking about, I think, of an instance in which you would 11 have an intermediate Commission proceeding between two others, jult){ovi AAwOs Lb 12 such as a viola tion of a licenseg and_41-nau -) . 13 The theory was, what I'm really getting at here 14 is quality assurance, inspection, and so forth, at the OL stage when you're talking about possible violations of the 15 construction permit, this facility hasn't been built properly. 16 , That's what that was designed to get at.
)7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's see, would that get
)g j9 picked up by significant new information? In other words, 20 suppose you discovered that come of the bases on which the 21 previ us license has been granted were f aulty.
MR. MALSCH: That would clearly -- 22 I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I would think that it clearly g; would. Ac,Jedero! Reportus. inc.
) MR. CASE: I never understood that violation 25 i i
}
i -
1 geh 28 {' 29 4 1 thing. It's been in there for years. i MR. DIRCKS: I know the history. It was back when
- 3
, the original bill was coming in, '72 or '73.
Ci 4 , MR. 1ALS b+E . It-was put in there, I think, CEO
- 5 l and (inaudible). The catch, I think we thought new information 6 was one thing, but if there was anyone who could show that j j 7 something happened between the construction permit and the 8 time that you could put on the operating license, that could 3
9 also be made an issue. 10 They were specifically concerned about quality I Il assurance problems. That was the big deal at that time, l , I 12 Midland was still pending and a lot of concern about quality l 13 assurance, and they wanted to be sure that people could raise 14 I problems about the limitation of the quality assurance program 15 prior to operati'on. In which case, you would be talking about 16 the violations of the construction permit. 17 cob 1MISSIONER BRADFORD: And wnat is that limitation l l 18 ll on arising or occurring after the most recent (inaudible) l 19 violation designed to present? 20 ! Might there be violations of permits or regulations i
- 21 l or orders that you want to disregard because they -- )
, 22 : MR. MALSCH: That's what I'm thinking. I can't t- 1 I
23 ! think of any that would nappen, would happen between the ! i 24 1 CP and the OL. ' raf,,:ive; we n ine j 25 L COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Where would you catch that? t.
gsh 29 30 e 1 On significant new information or what? 2 MR. MALSCH: You could. 3 MR. CASE: But it would be a violation. I ! 4
- COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What I was really wondering 5
is why have the limitation? What good is it doing? j 6
- MR. CASE
- I think the idea must have been that --
i 7 l i the one, the particular example that I had in mind surely 8 It fits the quality assurance violation. arose afterwards.
' 9 MR. DIhRCKS: Well, I guess that it was to prevent, 10 assuming that the CP stage -- in those days, we talked about II CP and OL, and we thought that CP, we picked it all at the I2 CP stage.and we just worried about things and why it happened 13 at the CP stage. And maybe our choice of language wasn't that 14 good.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's see. Do you have 16 amendments to cps? $ 17 MR. MALSCH: Yeah. Well, very, very seldom, though . I 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: A very recent one might 19 be a recent amendment. 20 MR. MALSCH: I think you'd have to argue -- 21 well, you'd argue that the violation would have to be relevant
.22 ftotheproceeding, I'm sure. I guess that's a possibility.
LMU O'n@n Ww>+$
' j . 23 l If therg wac . (inaudible) to CP and a violation related to l
f 24 ! that. ' Aw rehns Repocen. inc. I ' 25] COMMISSIONER'GILINSKY: There's a good question. 1 l hl a
,gsh ,30 31 1
I mean why:do'you need -- 2 MR. MALSCH: Offhand, I can't think of a real 3
., good reason for having the' restriction.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I guess if there is no 5 good reason, then I would suggest taking it out. 6 It seems like when I think of it -- MR. MALSCH: l I 7 it's a violation of, let's say, a manufacturing license, which l l 8 is not picked up at ' the construction permit stage but is at the l 9 operating license stage, in which case should you or should 10 you not be able to raise it? 11 Under this language, you would not be able to I2 raise it because it had not occurred since the most recent
~
13 licensing action under the construction permit. I4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And it's a little hard to 15 call that significant new information when you have a second 16 . category -- 17 MR. MALSCH: Code for violations. 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Code violations. And 19 when you try to bring in a violation, you' re likely to f all 20 into a violation section. 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Anybody see any difficulty with l I. 22 [ striking the phrase, " arising or occurring after the most -- 1 23 ! MR.' CASE: I guess the only thing that I would 24 , be worried about or that must be taken car,e of, if you had AccJwlyrcl Reporters, Inc..! 25 h said violation and you've adjudicated it -- e n..
._.1. -
G S H '3 1, 32
* . 1
. a.
l I j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You now have to do it again. 2 MR. MALSCH: Again, the prohibition of relitigation 3 provision applies. i' 4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think that's right. I think the relitigation coverage across the whole thing, you know, 5 cleans out the need for a lot of little phrases. 6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: (Inaudible) that there is 7 in question about its universa3 implications. 8 MR. MALSCH: Well, I'm sure of it. In fact, they 9 stated it twice. 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That always worries me. 3) (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: If they thought that they { g were really sure, they would have left it once. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, the hazard is that they'll l 15 1 get it stated enough differently to defeat those times. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's exactly what worries 17 I I me. Once you see them restating something, you figure that they weren't sure about what it was they were stating the first time. 20 f MR. CASE: If they did it that way, somebody might take out- the first one and forget the second one. 22 < l r ! l (Laughter.) 23 ! l
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't we take out that 24 v.3ed.,ate n ponn b:.vl phrase which has been under discussion. I't doesn't seem to be 25lbn-t
'i l-t a
I gsh 32 33
. =.
j necessary. 1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It's all right with me, l 2 3 except I guess I'm a little uncomfortable. I'm not sure that 4 we know what the effect is. 3 CHn1RMnN uENDR1E: 1f somehoay finds e difficu.ity, 6 hopefully, they'll call our attention to it. l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Hopefully, if they're 7' r drafting over the next days, they can give it a little bit 8 more thought to see if there is -- 9 10 HAI N HMDRIE: In any case, I regard h as
)) a fairly low level of complaint.
Further? Does that take us through the -- okay, 12 { up to 4. Now here we are with interim licenses, interim OLs I g or amendments. The notice, we had said -- MR. MALSCH: 30 days for initial license and no l 15 i specific notice period for amendments. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would like to see that I 17 l llanguagetiedmorecloselyto"urgentpublicneedoremergency," because up here it says the Commission may (inaudible), and . 39 l l down here it says, let's see, the hearing shall be he held -- whether such an action is necessary because of the urgent 21 public need or emergency. 22 ('
! That doesn't seem to be a limitation as far as 23 I i I can see.
24 A:.Jederal Reporters. in: l MR. MALSCH: Well, I think th'e problem is they 25 j i choce to have the hearing discussion in 4 and the standards comp t -
gsh 33, 34 l 1 1 1 through clearly in'Section 192, which follows. So the 2 standard really hits you hard in 192. It hits you a little j I 3 I soft in 4 on page 24, although'they say, the Commission may, ( 4 subject to the provision of Section 192. j 5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I see, I see. 0 So the standards come on pretty hard MR. MALSCH: 7 in Section 192 on page 25. 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Maybe what we ought to do is 9 to go call Section 192 and see if it's satisfactory and then l 1 1 10 come back and see about the hearing scope and notice. ) II ! Now at 192 -- I2 MR. MALSCH: The only problem with this is, unlike g (- 13 our bill, it required the Commission itself to make the finding l I4
/nu c/ "z'
,/ # about urging publicgfimattdibiv) emergency and specifically 15
'at. a/ of NRR is to make the finding on the rest p, -ea the director 16 of'the act. ^*
17 MR. CASE: Well, the Commission itself, it 18 was in there prior to that. l 19 MR. MALSCH: No. In our draft, it could have been I 20 delegated. Except if a hearing were to be held, the Commission 1 21 itself had to preside.
,- 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I thought that we said it t
23 had to be a very -- 24 l MR. MALSCH: I think it was a,n opportunity for n,4 rwa Repeers, r 6ne. l 25 ; a hearing.
%O
gsh 34 l 35 a > 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think it ought to be 2 the Commission'-- 3 I
+ COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I think that's fair. ;
i We're talking about urgent public need or emergency. The l 5 lCommissioncould'welldevoteitsattentiontothis. 6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Does the Commission offer 7 l hearings to determine that. , 1 0 The last sentence on page 24 provides i MR. MALSCH: 9 for a hearing. 10 The Commission has to find that thing, MR. CASE: II whether there's a hearing on or not, as I read this. I2 MR. MALSCH: Yes. l 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE : Okay. Do we have problems 14 with the configuration here where the Commission itself 15 must find that the issuance is necessary because of an urgent 16 public need or emergency? 17 In our version you said that we could have delegated 18 j it. i 19 MR. MALSCH: The finding, although if the hearing 20 , was requested, the Commission itself had 'to preside at the 1 21 I l hearing. 22 ! CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. Is there any difficulty f 23 l with one of the commissioners on being compelled to make the i 24 j finding, the Comnission make the finding? AceJedere! Recoders. Inc, # 25 J, I think that that was rather the sense of our I; r I: d
36 95.h 33
)
previous discussions on the matter. MR. MALSCH: I think B is going to present the 2 P# 1U** 3 ( COMPISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes. 4 MR. MALSCH: For one thing, it implies that you couldn't overrule your own director. MR. CASE: I wondered about that. 7 COMMISSIONEn BRADFORD: '? hat language , on its face, 8 doesn't contemplate an appeal. 9 MR. MALSCH: That's r.i ght . And also -- MR. CASE: It also gets mixed up in that (inaudible '. 7) MR. MALSCH: Yes, because, again, they extended 12
*'~ this to include production facilities, which means -- \ 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What do we need that for? I 14 MR. MALSCH: I don't know. That's an issue that l 15 l I was going to raisc?
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why don't we take that 17 out? I just can't imagine -- l 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't ue combine A and B l 19 and just let the Commission itself, shall be found by the l 20 . lCommissionitselftheissuancenecessarybecause of urgent 21 i f public need, emergency, and in all other respects other than 22 (.
' the conduct or completion of the hearing provided for.
23 ) MR. CASE: You should take it out, because then 24 l 4eJ.Jeol Rewlen, Inc.] you ' re , the issue about whether it meets the Atomic Energy 25; i l LU
o c;sh 36 37
.. s.
l' Act is before the board, and you've made a finding that it does. 2 MR. MALSCH: Yeah, that's a little funny. You 3 might say by the Commission itself, or its "delegee" or something (, 4 that in all other respects -- 5 MR. KENNEKE: What you're saying is that you at 0 least have staff clearance, that there is no problem. Un-7 confirmed by a board, righ t . 8
'L GOMMiEsSIONER-BP D: I don't think you ought
./
9 to get the Commission into deciding the compliance with the 10 rules. It'looks like a nightmare to me. II MR. MALSCU: With the pending proceedings, it's 12 going to be very -- staff clearance, I think, is what you 13 want. I4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The language in B, then, ought 15 -to be -- 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But think abo".t that. It 17 may well be that they're talking about an enrichment facility. 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why would you have to, 19 why would there be -- 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I don't know. I could 21 rule it out.
- c. 22 : CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Imagine a way in which we're t
23 trying to enrich things (inaudible). 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Getting back to white Ace Federe! Reput**t. Inc. ! 25 j ' water reactors --- I mean, here you're talking about the light h J
'gph 37 38 1
or something. I tell you, I find that hard to imagine, too, 2 but if you're talking about one facility and what difference 3 that's going to make, I don't know. ( 4 I frankly don't see any being made. But anyway, 5 let's leave that. But when you're talking about a reprocessing 6 plant, enrichment plant -- I don't know. 7 MR. CASE: But don't forget amendments. This 8 also covers amendments. You ought to think about amendments 9 to the plants, to hold up-the operations, the hearing on the 10 amendment. 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Is the title incorrect? Is 12 it just interim operating licenses on Section 192 or is it l (~ 13 interim OLs and amendments to OLs? I4 MR. MALSCH: It's OLs and amendments to OLs. I 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think --
)
JIctIdsk f, hs I0 MR. ENNEKET- I think operating licenses and j 1 I 17 amendments ought to be. i 1 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yeah, I would think so. l 19 MR. KENNEKE: Why is the structure this way? 20 l Why did they sort of group each type of license into the 21 I hearing notice requirements and the hearings? l 22 Their objective was to have one
,{ MR. MALSCH:
23 l section which had all the hearing and notice requirements. So i 24 l they ended up duplicating a lot of them. , A:,hd,rol Reporters; Mc. ! 25 cl . 'MR. KENNEKE: It gets to be very -- now that we're i I l i
,1
go.h 38, 39 1 getting a bill, that's going to be longer and very complicated 2 to read and very easy to -- 3 .
. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We've decided the structural
(' 4 l que s tion . It's not an issue. Please, let's stick to what 1 5
'l we've got at haad.
6 What we need is some language in B, then, which
, takes out, which keeps the director of NRR from doing something 8 Okay?
that the Commission can't come down on. I think that 9 that's the main problem. 10 You could just strike by the MR. MALSCH: 11 director of Nuclear Regulations, and say that it shall be - I2 found that in all respects other than the conduct. 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, why don't we just 14 say you can't act without a finding from him? And then you 15 can accept'or not accept it. 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's what his sugges. 17 13, , arty? 18 MR. MALSCH: (Nods in the affirmative.) I9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Marty? 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Sey it shall be found, 21 and then just strike that line, by the Director of Nuclear -- l ( 22 so it says it shall be found that in all respects. It doesn't l
'- l 23 say by whom.
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well,,I would say -- 24 f A:,.Fadarol Reporten, lac.y 25 y you wan'c to leave open the possibility that you want to overrule
.q l
ii
gdh'39' 40 I them. So you simply say -- 2 That's a very -- you haven't had a MR. CASE: 3 I think the hearing. Your staff says that it's not safe. . ( 4 chances of your overruling without having a hearing itself 5 is rather small. P 0 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would say so. I think 7 so. 8 You certainly don't want to act without a finding 9 from the Director (inaudible). 10 MR. MALSCH: Well, I think the only danger in II the present language is that it's subject to the implication I2 that the Commission could not overrule its Director.
. 13 Whether or not that's a likely happaning in the 14 context of an ongoing contested proceeding, I think it's, 15 it puts us in a very funny position.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The other way around, Ed, 17 it could well be that the staff finds'that, irdeed, the 18 plans have been met and the Commission could say that we're 19 not satisfied with that. 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: This permits that. 21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I think it's extremely 22 unlikely the other way, not very likely this way but perhaps 23 more likely. Yeah. 24 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Wellt that's permitted. A<.e Federal Reporten, in:, j
.25 " COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, Marty's concern is tha
gsh 40 41 I it might not be. MR. MALSCH: Tha t's not no clear because of the 3 distinct'on they drew. ( 4 MR. KELLEY: Can't you add a sentence that says 5 that the NRR Director determination is subject to Commission 6 review, under some narrow standard? 7 MR. MALSCH: That's possible. O MR. KELLEY: It makes for a long sentence but you 9 l! can do it that way. l 10 Or you can avoid the whole thing MR. CASE: i II by saying (inaudible). 12 MR. KELLEY: Well, but that's, if you jast say I
~.
13 it shall be found, that sounds like there's a board finding 14 it and that's exactly what you don' t want. 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, then, to solve the l 16 problem you can put by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulatio:t 17 or the Director of NMSS, whichever is appropriate, that -- 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How about by the Commission or 19 its designee? 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Okay, by the Commission 21 foritsdesigneeandthenwecan-- I g 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That preserves the power to s l 1 23 ltheCommissionandmakesitclearthatthedesigneeisnot t 24 l going to be privileged to overrule the bas.ic authority. Awremot woners, ine. l 25 h COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Or we issue a delegation li l-4
gsh 41 42 I indicating the limits of the delegation. 2 Will that cure your difficulty, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 3 Mar ty? MR. MALSCH: Yes. 5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: You do have to be careful, 6 I guess, in delegating it to do it on some terms of reliev-7 ability, otherwise you'll see the same thing again. O MR. MALSCH: You probably want to spell it out 9 in a part two or something, so people would know who to complain P 10 ! to about it. II CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now with that. change, it 12 puts us very nearly, it puts us where we have been previously (- 13 with our language, although in somewhat different form. 14 MR. MALSCH: That's right. In terms of the 15 findings, I've got some other changes here, too. 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right, now let's talk 17 about the other changes. 18 MR. MALSCH: The first one is the one that we 19 discussed just briefly, and that was our bill confining this 20 l to nuclear power reactors. This extends it to all production i l 21 l and utilization facilities. p 22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That doesn't seem like a 23- very useful change, but do we know why they did that? 24 j MR. MALSCH: No. I think they just thought, why A o Fedecol Reporters, Inc. 25 !, not? There could be an occasion where you might have a -- li n
gs,h 4 2, 43 e inaud-ihle)- amendments , I would say, is the only case I can 2 conceive of a real, demorstrated need arising, an amendment 3 to, let's say, to an enrichment plant license that had to get 4 t hro ugl. , less the plant be shut down for some reason or other. 5 There might be a -- well, I guess it's conceivable you can 6 make the finding. If it's in the public interest, issue the 7
, amendment.
I 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I don't object to the 9 production and utilization. The fact that it applies across 10 the licensing scope of the Commission is less significant to ; II . me than the controls which are built in further down. So I2 whatever it is, why, here are all of these things, urgent . 1 13 public need and emergency, the Commission itself to decide 14 and so on. 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The amendment situation, 16 I suppose, actually might arise in some situation. 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. That's why, as Marty 18 says, that's the place tha t would make it useful to have .a 19 little broader probably. If we're talking strictly about l 1 20 reactors, why, then -- if we're talking about interim operating i 21 licenses, I think in f ac t we' re talking pretty strictly j I i f 22 laboutreactorsandconventional.whitewatermachinesatthat. i i 23 lTheamendmentsmakeitusefultohavealittlebroaderscope. I 24 L, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: We can, change the thing on A:e Federo! Peporten. Inc 251 page 26. I I i
44 gsb 43, 1 !- MR. CASE: Well, the a's another 2 As I remember our bill, the t issue on page 26, doesn't it? i 3
< , Commission did not need to make itself, did not need to make l 4
s,/wri27ycsW l p the public interest finding for f4-retteMbiv) .-
~
5 Under our bill, the only thing that MR. MALSCH: 6 was to hold the the Commission specifically had to do itself 7 I hearing on the initial license. Everything else could have i 8 ) been delegated. l 9 In the same vein as including in-production and 10 allowing other utilization facilities, they have included out, ) 11 commencement of operation in the cases of combined construction 1 12 i permits and operating licensas. (~ 13 I don't know why they did that. So in a sense, Id they expanded it. 15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What specifically did they 16 eliminate? I7 MR. MALSCH: Our provision allowed not only the 1 18 issuing of an interin operating license, but also to allow 19 interim operation in the cases where you had issued a combined 20 construction permit and operating license. They have not ! 21 included that in here, for some reason, I don' t know why. i 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It sounds like (inaudible). {' 23 MR. MALSCH: I can't -- the justification for 24 i having one is the same as the other. I don't know why thev j
. ts.dvs upo wt in:.[
25[ would not include that other one, i I 1 I
' 45
; c;sh 4 4 l
I Yes, I'm trying to distingui:;h l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I 2 l that and I can't see it. 3 own language back. Ic Why don't we put our k 4
! seems to me --
5 Will it fit within the framework CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: 6 here in a reasonable way? 7 MR. MALSCH: We'll figure out a way to do it, b do it. I'm sure that we can 7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask you.something. l 10 It says, at least 60 days prior to the issuance of any such II general operating license and so on, the Commission shall 12 publish -- ] 13 MR. MALSCH: Where is this? I4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: This doesn't sound like 15 there's an emergency and also, if you've got 60 days, I think -- i 16 MR. MALSCH: Well, we've changed that to 30 now. ; 17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: 30? Okay. It seems to 18 me that if you've got 30 days, there ought to be a requirement 19 for a hearing. 20 ! It occurred to me tha t you might, in the case I l 21 of an emergency, if you feel that you've got to turn on the ) 22 switch and you have to do it overnight, then, okay, maybe g
.a lr>mAf%lia1&
'p 23 seem to have you wouldg Fi-netttdiMa)Jl,,s,/,4> 48w,a hearing on apnational V i
( # '24 ,; cmergency. But I find thatg %tetr&iMe+-written. ,But the A e Fehl Rep m. inc. I I think that there ought to be a definite requirement 25 l{ 30 days, 1 N
. j
_I . . I
geh,45 46 l I for a hearing. j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now what about the -- let's ; 3 see, I'm getting lost. ; ( # Okay, let me hold that until we'll get to the 5 scope and notice. Okay? On the hearing, and see if we can-6 finish the 192 section. 7 Is there difficulty with including coming closer 8 to our section on the CPOL on the same standard? l 1 l 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why i s that not included l 10 already or -- II i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Because this talkn just about i l 12 operating licenses. Hence, it would presumably -- are you C,. 13 sure it wouldn't apply to the CPOL case? ) I 14 MR. MALSCH: I'm sure. We had specific language . l 15 that specifically picked that up. 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But you're allowing operat1o,n ..' 17 In other words -- let's see, given -- what we' re talking about 18 is what? Given a combined CPOL at this point, they finish l 19 the plant? 20 MR. MALSCH: Right. We have not called that act 21 of allowing it to' go into operation any place in the bill an Yet, they have confined the authority ( 1 22 loperatinglicense. 23 here to issue interim licenses to issuing operating licenses. l 24 j' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What you have here is a AceJederal Reporters, Inc. ! 25 technical drafting problem which may, by inadvertence, be t. l' _
gap 4Q 47 f. 1 ell'minating a particular small class of operating licenses. MR. MALSCH: I would say that it would be. MR. KENNEKE: Could you cover that (. 4 by calling this section authorizing interim operation? 5 MR. MALSCH: Oh, it's an easy fix. $ 6 MR. KENNEKE: And defining categories for which 7 you would allow such operations? O MR. MALSCH: Well, it's an easy fix. We've got 9 the language in our bill. It's just a matter of plugging in 10 some additional clauses. II CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In fact, if you've got a plant 12 which had a full review at the early stage and you're now ( 13 in a hearing over some piece of new information, it has all I4 of the merits of a plant which went a CP stage and an OL stage, 15 and I think it's just a technical oversight. , i 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Suppose you said that the 17 Commission is authorized to permit operations? 18 MR. MALSCH: That's, in essence, what we had 19 done. The language, as revised, would read: "The Commission
.1 20 ; is authorized to issue an interim operating license or an l l
21 I interim amendment to an operating license, or permit commence av e&N(
; of oper tion;f(-i-newnble)- which permits a permanent lice 7
+
% 22 1 t
23 I to be issued upon -- and then track it off. l 24 ; CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think it,must be a pretty Ate Federot Repar'ers, Inc. l ) 25 g straightforward -- okay, let's do that. i i t l
.1
_grn 47 48 1 Okay, now what else is in here that -- i 2 MR, MALSCH: The next thing is in our version 1 i 3 we had provided for public comment on interim amendments (' 4 i and opportunity a hearing before Commission hearing on s - 5 i the actual it. conse. 6
'rovides for options for comment in 4
7 Loth :ases anc for a hearing in both cases. 8 CHA .40RIE: And ours? Say again what 9 ours said. 10 j MR. MALSCH: Our had comments on the amendments 1
-11 and an opportunity for a hearing before the' Commissioners j l
12 on the actual license. , ( 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Required comments? I 1 l i I4 MR. MALSCH: I believe so. Let me see. l l 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That's odd. ( 16 MR. MALSCH: Let's see. r I7 (Pause.) j I8 MR. MALSCH: In our bill, the Commission published t I9 a notice, which, in the case of the actual license, invited ! l 20 people to request a hearing and in the case of amendments, 21 !invitedpeopletosubmitcomments. That's on page 14 of our f I l 23 i 's - MR. KENNEKE: e d. g _ p u . And spm . ;. Ed--(+nmidiMe)-?- 7 1 1 24 i MR. MALSCH: No, the hearing is flexible. In fact,
' Ace Fn.hrof Resortaas. int.
25 ;l the hearing type is flexible in both bills. i! h I ~
gsh 48 49 1 1 MR. XENNEKE: Oh, I see. I 1 2 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE : Now, in this bill, then, just 3 for both cases, why you notice 30 days ahead and there's the l ( 4 1 opportunity for hearing if somebody raises the issue. 4 Righ t?
- MR. MALSCH
- That's right. And an opportunity l l
4 7 . for comments in both cases. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE : And an opportunity for l 3 9 comments in both cases. The difference doesn't strike me ! l 10 as enormous, I must say. l 11 Now what about Vic's point that if you've got, you know, if you're attempting to deal here with genuine i 13 public emergency cases, can you stand 30 days in a hearing? l 14 1 And do you want to be committed to it in the legislation? l l 15 COMMISSION GILINSKY: Well, I think it cuts ] 16 I mean, if it's really an emergency, you may not , both ways. 17 be able to stand 30 days (inaudible). If, indeed, we're 18 sticking with 30 days, I think the hearing ought to be mandatory . l9 think the Commission should have to say publicly why it's I 20 doing this and ought to hear out the staff in public. 2I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I have no objection to that 22 either. 7 23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Neither an I, but I think
'24 that there ought to be a built-in provision which, in fact, ~ . - - - ,
25 if.there were a. genuine emergency, the Commission, on its own
'l
gs,h 49_ 50
)
l > 1 certification, could weigh the given requirements. 2I . COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, you may want to 3 I separate urgent public needs and emergency. In the case i 4
, oi emergency, you can do (inaudible).
5 I CUAIRMAN HENDRIE: Comments? f 6 MR. MALSCH: Well, the hearing is informal. So -- ; 7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, the hearing may be 8 informal. So you could -- 9 How did we have that? Did we have tFat same 10 possibility? 11 MR. MALSCII: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Jim, what do you think? (. 13
- 5. MR. KELLEY: Well, this says 60 days? l 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, we're going to pull it 15 down to 30.
s 16 MR. KELLEY: 30? Even so, if it's a'real emergency. I7 I suppose that you should be able to go faster than that. IO That's my reaction. I9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Isn't it plausible that 20 you would so need one reactor, because that's what we're really 21 I talking about. One reactor out there with a long hearing. 22 MR. MALSCH: I think wha t we' re really talking tg i 23 l about is is there the possibility that you would not know the 24 emergency any more than 30 days in advance,. And if you knew
- A:,4cderot Repor+ers, Inc.,!
25 of the emergency more than 30 days in advance, obviously, you f b.-
gcp 50 51
. \
1 could notice a little earlier and anticipate the time required I i 2 to, say, hold .the hearing. ' 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I guess I'm questioning I 4 the whole idea. l 5 ; MR. KENNEKE: The emergency may come up suddenly uonJ2d 2Lcca v' h6 libut he fact that you've got this f acility ready to go4finaudibl y)q J 7 overnight, that's going to be obviously coming down the pike. i g COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It might well be ready 9 to go, or nearly so, and be held up in some kind of litigation ) i 10 r something of that nature. 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No, but I mean is it 12 conceivable that one reactor will activate -- MR. CASE: Yeah, I can conceive that like you have (~ 13 34 a big flood and, you know, we design our reactors so they're 15 way the hell above a thousand-year flood, but nobody else does 16 and this is dua only damn facility that could operate to j7 deliver power -- 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: In that area. l MR. CASE: In that area.
)9 l
,g l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You know, it's to be I
21 l recalled that las t winter the mount of electric generation
! by nuclear facilities in some of the hardest hit areas in the 22 l r '
i 2a_,l Northeast and, indeed, even in the South, nuclear power, that
; in fact there were a whole lot of other generating facilities nescae.o rReporms. in:
i that were simply down. 25 . v k. j
.p b
u
guh 51, 52 l I' i 1 5 cot 01ISSIONER GILINSKY: Right, but what we' re 2 talking about -- [3 u ["/ i i 3
, COf@lISSIONER KENNEDY: 4 fInaudibl-e) and- there 's
( 4 no way to get them up. ! S CO!O1ISSIONER GILINSKY: But when we're talking 6 about one plant, would it make a difference if you had one ! l
- 7 less plant to the point that you want to move really rapidly?
8 CO!@lISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, I don't know. ) 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Look. The power pools range 10 from small ones in the 4,000 to 8,000 gigawatt watt range 11 to big ones in the 40 gigawatt range. A single unit at 12 ne gigawatt, then, can be as much as 15 percent of the generating capacity in a pool area. And even in a large pool, ( 13 i 34 is still several percent. And if you're down on your o _ers i of units down for one reason or another and the j e 15 l with a lot i' 16 margin is gone, one unit can be very important at this -- ) l For instance, if you're at the place where that 37 f 18 units allows you to meet your peak load in the afternoon through ;
)p the evening of the winter, and without it, you can't, and 20 l y u have to rotate upwards of a thousand megawatts load in l I
I brownout condition for six hours every afternoon and early l 21 i evening, why, I think, you know, that's a fairly severe chunk. (' l So it's not trivial. As time goes on and the j , i i i grids get bigger and the exchange facilities, you know, the ! 24 ,, _ A: Jedaro! Repeners. Inc. b ehm MbeMu,W,WM d;Ws%M h c 1 0
. l
?, I i !
gsh : 5 2, 53 1 important. 2 Cf)MMISSIONER KENNEDY: But it's going to depend 3 on a lot of things. In the Far West, for example., the drought k -4 conditions having drawn down the ability of a lot of those 5 generating stations to produce the hydropower that they've j 6 been producing at 40 percent, the total power going out of l 7 the grid coming off of facilities, it can't produce that i 8 much power. You're going to have some serious problems that I 9 can be caused by relatively short-term but immediate abnor-10 malities that arise. 11 MR. KENNEKE: Isn't this case true only for, in 12 effect, an amendment to an existing operable plant? You've ( 13 got the whole business of start-up. For a new operating ja license, it's not going to be in a position to produce twtd p(z~ dible). So you're really limiting yourself to -- 15 16 CIIAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, that's not the case. 17 The reason that we've gone ahead and that I've urged the gg Commission to accept a provision like this is to avoid being 39 helpless under the basic statutes. We had a plant which 20 . was expected to go into operation three months ago, okay? l It's sitting there ready to go. It has been sitting there 21 ready to go for three months. But there's been an antitrust g ( hooker held up or something like that, and we're litigating 23 g seven unies who want in at cheaper rates, or whatever, and ~ ~ -.a . in the meantime, there are a thousand megawatts every afternoon 25 I
gsh 53,- 54 I worth a customer load that can't be serviced when they pull 2 the breakers on the subsections. 3l What I'm saying is that when the governor comes , 1 i l ~ ' 4 4 around and says to the President, you've got to do something, i 5 I don' t want. him to turn to this Commission and us to sit l 6 here fat, dumb, and happy and say, we weren't bright enough i 7 to think of this and to suggest to the Congress that it be i g; considered. I 9 (Simultaneous conversation. ) 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That sounds like you 11 can't stand the 30 days. 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The 30-day question is a g d one. We thought 60. I think , on balance, you probably ( 13 4 34 can't. That is, if you get into this configuration, you 15 probably have to be regarded as kind of dumb" if you weren't ! 16 able to anticipate that it might occur, you know, two months n ahead of time. And I have no -- if we come down to 30 days
)7 l
18
' and you want a mandatory hearing, I think that's perfectly 39
' fair.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I think that's fair, too. 20 But I would say -- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That's certainly consistent 22 . ( l with the way we've talked here that this would be a rare 3 i l and a real emergency situation and the Commission itself 24 Aa Fednoi Reponen. Inc. ' . , . ught to sit down and face up to it. 25 f, I
,, a w .- *
\\
gsh 54 l. 55 1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I do not think, however, th at 2 we should, for.the same' reasons that you're saying that this l 3 basic concept should be recognized in this legislation, I k 4 don't think that we should rule out the possibility that this 1 5 extraordinary circumstance should arine, where in fact it 1 6 could not have been really foreseen that far; indeed', perhaps 7 everyone had tried very hard not to allow the circumstance to 8 develop to that point and at some point it did. 9 I Now I don't know what that circumstance is, but 10 it seems to me that we ought to allow ourselves the ability to waive, if we had to do it, only we could do it, but I 11 12 waive the 30-day requirement. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It's at least a thought. I ( 13 14 l don't know. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : I would hate for the 15 same reason that -you suggest, to say, I'm sorry, Mr. President. 16 se; 37 You'll have to go pass a law.
)g CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, you'll have to wait 30 39 days plus hearing time.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Or see if you can get some 20 21 1egislation through the Congress in the next -- l I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You know, you raised the question,:
,2 4 l 23 if y u're g ing to talk about emergencies, whether we shouldn't, in fact, have built in here the ability to act 24 AaJeonrol Reporters, int if nee had 30 day sorts faster than the 30 days. And indeed, 25 l
gsh 55 56
]
I of times, or people could live through 30 day sorts of times, 2 then why not make the meeLing mandatory. I think that making 3 the meeting mandatory before the Commission, I think that ( *4 that's fine. If we're going to do anything of this kind, 5 lindeed, you're right. We're going to sit here in full public 6 view and say that's it. 7/ Now what about the provision about the emergency? 8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Are there situations in 9 which the second finding, public health and safety finding, 10 is likely to be possible to be made in less than 30 days, 11 much less tha. 30 days? 12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The Chairman is looking ( 13 at the question. For example, he raises one where the i 14 health and safety findings already have been made. 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And where it's not an issue McMt gkms 9mawf 16 in the reason for thej (-inaudi-bleh ,m g 17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, but, I mean there's i se icLs/ ! nu _ _. 18 a certain built in delay {(in dibla), I think that maybe Al ' 19 l has a good point. Maybe you want to have this kind of 20 ability on amendments or something. 21 MR. KENNEKE: How about this distinction? To i 22 j cay 60 days and your critorion is urger nublic need, and I 4.- 23 l then parenthetically say that the Commincion may waive the f 2!!l notice period in cases of emergency? Tha t is, it distinguishes 4.:..reae ci hpum. N 25 , the case from one where you need it now by an event that you
;L li V
9sh 56. 57
]'
1 l-hadnotanticipatedfrona situation in which it's been building ) I 2 up and it's just a matter'of ha. ring it sitting there and being 3 held up by a technicality of some kind. k 4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I think distinguishing I 5 I between the two cases is useful, and I certainly agree with 6 Vic's view that if it is possible to do so, there is that time, 7 30 days or 60, that a hearing ought to be mandatory. 8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But why shouldn't the 9 hearing be mandatory in any case. As long as there's the l 10 tixne it takes to start up the reactor, you can always hold a 11 hearing. 12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But the stack-up time {~ 13 begins only when you authorize it to begin,. ja COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, but not much is 15 happening even there, and you can hold a hearing but nobody's 16 shutting down again. MR. KENNEKE: But the hearin~g concerns you only
)7 ] .
if it turns out to be it's a formal hearing. If you can 18 jp control the form of the hearing, you can limit the time it takes. 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think that's right. If we l
- had a'real unexpected and really urgent situation, we would 22 1
( presumably contr i the form of the hearing to be one in which 23 : we could move forward in a new days, get people in, open the 24 ;. 4..F.deret Reporters, in:
! M hh M W M h l' m a n h , M 25 ,
1 i 0 i r - i
58
., gsk 5 7.
1 1 'I perceive that, indeed, it's justified. 2 So I think that mandatory hearing, regardless 3 of notice, is not a bad proposition. (. 4 Do you see any difficulty with it?
)
5 MR. MALSCH: No, You still have the builtmin l 30 days, plus hearing time, which may be only a few days. j 6 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, we' re talking about the 8 possibility of relieving the 30 days. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Waive it. If you waive l 9 10 the 30 days, but still call for a hearing. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But still call for a hearing. 3) MR. MALSCH: That's no problem because if you ! 12 l e ntrol the type of hearing, you can control the time that ( 13 the hearing takes. l
)4 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. So let's settle on ]
15 1 mandatory hearings. Okay, apart from anything else. Good. 16 The second thing, the second question now is
,7 s
should we separate emergency situations out and allow a 18 39 breaching of whatever notice we are going to require otherwise? MR. ENNEKE: May I say one thing i support of l 20 that notion? Again, it occurs to me right now it juxtaposes
, the urgent public need and the emergencies. I think it i
- would help to see emergency as simply a subset under urgent 2.'
;' public need. And that was the difficulty that I think you l
M, Federot Reportert Inc. With the juxtaposition c hav N d th the plant sitting there. 25. li L b i o
.. ~ .
l g.s n 5'8 59 1 j 1 I i of the two, somebody will read this and say what they really j i 2 meant was emergency when they're talking about urgent public 3 needs rather than some larger category. , l 4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yeah, urgent public need 5 and emergency. ] l 6 MR. KENNEKE: Perhaps both. Right. l l I 7 I argue additionally that it would be helpful 8 to separate the two. 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, let me see what the l l 10 sense of the Commission is. Do you feel that it would be l i i 11 useful, desirable? Should we try to draft it that way or 12 simply let it stand and take the 30 days plus hearing time, (' 13 or whatever? 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I guess I wonder 1 15 whether we really need to change it for cierating licenses, 16 in the sense that you're not going to be turning the plant on i 17 full blast anyway, and probably, if you had to, it would 18 Speed up the normal process of starting. 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I agree with that view and 20 that's the reason that I hadn' t previously in this section 21 argued for pulling the required notice time down to zero or, 22 you know, something like that. (- In the case of amendments, COMMISSIONER GILINGKY: 23 I think that tha t may enter, too. 24 ; 'I t Ace fedtrol Repcrters, in:, I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In the case of amendments, it 25 t
gsk 59 60 , I certainly makes a lot more sense. ) 2 All right. Could we agree, then, that for :i nterin 1 3 operating licenses there will be a notice period. For 4 interim amendments , we will allow the possibility that in
- 5 emergencies we may move direct.ly to hearing.
6 MR. MALSCH: In fact, we already did that by 7 agreeing earlier in connection with notices to have a 30-day [ g notice for the interim license and no specific notice period 9 for amendments. l 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. l jj MR. MALSCH: That 's a little dif ferent than 12 waiving notice altogether, however. You want to have -- ( 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, I don't want to waive
- notice altogether, but not put in a specific period. Okay.
34 S that the structure is there for -- 15 ONSSIONER UNEDY: Let's talk about the 4 16 i j p 30-day period. You're sure that we're clear on what we're I d ing? The governor comes in and says, I've got to have this 18 power. The plant is here and essential'ly ready to go, ready
)9 l -
f r the issuance of an operating license. There are no health 20 g and safety questions unresolved. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: As far as the staf f is
\ !
23 ! concerned? I I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: As far as the staff is 24 ! l A:Mewot Rec >ortm, Inc.
' Co ncerne d . We then say, okay, We're going to notiCo this for 25 V t
a b ti
gs9 '60 3 61 1 30 days and we're going to have a hearing. Now let's take the 2 shortest hearing time and visualize how many daya do we add 3 to the 30, Marty? I 4 MR. MALSCII: Maybe a week. 5l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: A week, yes. I' 6 MR. MALSCII: We need to give some advanced notice y of the hearing. The hearing could be only a day, yeah. 8 MR. CASE: You ought to givo 30 days advanced notice.<% l i 9 j the hearing. { 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, you don't give j i 11 30 days advanced notice of the hearing, but why can't the 12 hearing take place within the 30 days?
~
MR. MALSCH: Well, presumably, you need to take 13 ja into account at the hearing -- COtelISSIONER KENNEDY: 30 days prior to the 15 issu n f tne license, that you shall publish in the Register . 16 the notice. 37 OMMISSIOER BNORD: Well, Gen , H Ge notice 18 , I I
)p said we contemplated issuing the license 30 days from now and the hearing will be 20 days from now, and it were a one-day j 20 i
hearing, you could do it all with in that. 21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yen, you could. MR. MALSCH: If it were cieca Lhat the 30-day 23n [! U notice provision didn't give people a right to send in comments 2# l! te. Acdcrat Reporten. In:.t. up until the 30th day. 25 h e h N i. I J
guh 61, , ' 62 1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, as long as you 2 stuck to the notice itself .in such a way that that (inaudible). 3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But you'd also have to 4 structure this to make that possible, i 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It says 30 days prior to 6 issuance. 7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yeah. g CHAIRMAN HENRIE: And leaves to the rule of the l p Commission what the notice, why one time your comments, it's 10 a 15-day comment period, hearing on the 20th day to round things j) up and go, presumably. 12 S that configuration within the present language is possible. The whole thing could be completed in 30 days. j {"' 13 g COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: So it could be by 30 days? CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, I guess that's right. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: All right. Now suppose that ], 16 I within, say, three days of day one of this 30-day period it were possible for the Commission to go ahead and grant the license. What would occur technically from that point forward? j 19 i H w so n would that reactor actually have been putting out 20 substantial amounts of power onto the grid? Ten days, right? No? Not that soon? I What would actually be produced by the end of that period? i
. i ,
A , Federal hportm, in:. ' MR. CASE: I don't think'you could guarantee 25 : L _ -
~ - .
63 gsh 62.. 1 Producing any megawatts in the grid in 30 days, l 2 COf@iISSIONER KENNEDY: In 30 days. But my point 3 is you're going to add 30-day increments. 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But, you know, the percent-5 age change is a lot more. In other words, it isn't like 6 turning a switch or waiting 30 days to turn the switch. 7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: No, I realize that. It's 4 8 a gradual -- p COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That's right. You've 10 got ano . or built-in delay. Now you might at the same time 11 be able to speed up normal procedures somewhere. 12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What I was trying to see ( 13 is there. ways in which those things can overlap rather than ja follow sequentially? And if you can, can you save enough 15 time to make it worthwhile? That's the important question. 16 MR. CASE: I put the authority in do it in an
)7 mergency. You've got emergency in there and it's hard to 18 conceive what it might be. I think it ought to be in there
)9 and be able to waive the 30-day period for the emergency.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Emergencies, by their very 21 f natures, are almost never foreseen. 22 {* COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, let me ask you. 23 1
'llow long does the start-up take? In other words --
24 Acife@rolR9Mers, int, {l MR. CASE: The normal start-tfp is a couple of 25 3 r
-l
gsl; 63. 64 1 months. 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: A couple of months? 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Even pressing, we'd be hard i 4 put to make it (inaudible). l l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So it's a diflerence, at 5 6 best, between a month and two months? And possibly. betwoon 7 Lwo months and three months? 8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes. 1 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It's not 'anreasonable to 10 have a -- MR. CASE: You act like you can always think of
))
verything. 12 g COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: We also don't want to - s 13 make it too easy.for the governors to come on in and -- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I'll tell you. A 30-day e process from the necessary ( cgW this J,16 ebulble) to notice procedure is such an enormous improvement in ability to react over having the statute just flatly not allow you to do a 18 l i damn thing about it, that I think it's not unreasonable to 9 e p ct people to plan a little bit ahead, and as they foresee 20 a configuration arising where they're going to really need the power and we are in a hearing and it's clear that the 22 i proceeding just isn't going to resolve itself in any timely 23 ! that people are going to have to go forward, and 24[ffashion, Ace-Tede,ot Reporte i, Inc. if they can get the governor and the appropriate state 25 , 1 i,. _
,gsh',64 " 65 1
authorities to. agree that it is an urgent matter, why, I 2 dcn't feel badly about the 30 days. Particularly since we 3 can configure, as has been pointed out, within this language f : 5 4 1 we can configure things so that there's quite a fair, quite ; i 5 a high likelihood of completing deliberation and coming to 4 6 a decision within the 30 days. l So I don't feel that bad. That is, I don't feel 7 , 8 that much of a need for -- 1 1 COMMISSIONER KEtiNEDY: I guess that my point is 9 ' the 30 days out of a 90-day total is one-third. And if we j 10
)) are using the word " emergency" as I visualize.that word --
that is, some kind of cataclysmic situation utterly and 12 t tally unforeseen, not planned on, and emergencies do occur f 1 ( 13 of this kind -- 30 days out of 90 is one-third of the total, j4 and that could be important. 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What we're saying, really, 16 is that reactors can ' t respond -- p jg (Simultaneous conversation) COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I would rather have it in
)7 60 than 90 in such a case. That's exactly the point I'm 4
20 . 21 l tryingtomake.gf;. j d-Q3g g
' COMMIb bwN uu=f RAUFORD:' Under our regalations now, y? 22 :
I 1 ' if nobody objects, including any party, and the plant can 23 ,' operato up to 99 percent of power, then you can litigate the 4:,wdm: Reponm. in:4 rest. 25l E h p
gnh 65. 66 1 1 So, clearly, an intervenor could stipulate, a 2 plant co"'d go through its normal start-up and be ready to . l 3 deliver power but would want to continue to litigate the 4 deliverance cf power. 5 MR. MALSCll : I-think those (inaudible) are 6 stipulated testing up to 20 percent of power but insisted 7 on litigating the remaining 80 percent. 8 l-Also, in some cases, the staf f has been successful 9 in getting summary disposition of issues at lower power levels, 10 because it just didn't seem to be re.1evant. The (inaudible) End gsh j) issue would still be hanging -- 12 l l 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 t
"t . .
23 lc
-24 Ace-Federot Reporters, Inc l'
25 I i
1,I
~ !. 67 h.
1 CR. 5311 1l MR. MALSCH: -- either by summary disposition or dkw 1 l 2l by stipulation, have a license issued for 20 or-30 percent i 3l power; have, I guess, most of the lower power testing out of f the way, and be very -- not too far away at all from full 4l 5 Power operations. 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: To move ahead, I really propose 7 we do hang with the 30 to issuance -- 30 day notice to issuance i 8, mandatory hearings for the license, and.give us -- on the 9 amendment side, the ability to act quickly, because there, indeed, we presumably have a facility which in 12 hours 10 jj could be back at full power, or something close to it. i I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Would you also, for my 12 ( 13 benefit, see what language, taking care of my concern, might g say, independently? CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yeah, I expect it would. Why I don't you draft some alternate -- 1 16 MR. MALSCH: So the label would apply to both? 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Then under Dick's concern it never really is 30 percent. Because there's some minimum, from the moment of the emergency to the moment where you've got the -- the 60 days begin. So that it's always going to be 22 (~ more like 20 days to 30, say, even if you had enough power. 23 MR. CASE: It you would say 20 or something.like 24 McF~Jerel Reporters, Inc. that (inaudible). 25
l. l' . 68 dkw 2 1> COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: He's talking about -- you've l 2 got a plant in partial operation. But you will know to that i 3! by litigation -- ( MR. KENNEKE: There is a provision on page 26, just 4l 5 to remind you of your options there, that -- shall contain I 6 such conditions as the Commission deems appropriate (inaudible). 7 So you've got the option (inaudible). 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now, Marty, is it clear enough 9 what to do with this? 10 MR. MALSCH: Let me recapitulate. We've got
)j comments and mandatory hearings; waiver of the advanced notice ,
12 per amendments, or alternatively, for both. 1 ( CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, separate language'for that. 13 , g MR. MALSCH: Yes, right. And you want to have the emergency as the standard i 15 for waiving notice -- by urgent public need as a standard for issuing (inaudible) licenses, is that right? That was Al Kenneke's suggestion, i 18 i MR. CASE: No, no. Your standard for issuance is right. But it was only Commissioner Kennedy who wanted the standard -- 21 MR. MALSCH: Oh, that's right. So your language woulc. t. incorporate.that. 23 l CHAIRMAN HUNDRIE: And 30 days notice -- AceJederot Reporta.s. irr MR. MALSCH: Okay. ' 25
. .' 69 dkw'3 -1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And flexible control of the t
i 2 hearing -- type of hearing. i 3 MR. MALSCH: Yes, that's in there already. (' I suggest a compromise. If you wanted 4 MR. KELLEY: 5; to be able to waive hearing on an emergency (inaedible), you 6 could make it a feasible amendment short of transporting. 7 Because this says, once you get this amendment out, it's good , 1 l
)
' for a year. 8 i 9 Say in a case where you waive the hearing, you'd have to have one within 30 days after you (inaudible). And 10 if you did that, you could march on. You could do that sort 11 12 of a c mpromise. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. That might throw out the ( 13
~
.j4 a1 ternate, but for the moment I'd like to --
15 (Simultaneous dis ~1ssion.) MR. MALSCH: You would have a post-issuance hearing? 16 MR. KELLEY: On a quick time frame. 17 MR. MALSCH: On a quick time frame?
;g O 41L--RELLEV+ Ycs. -
A QV MR. KELLEY: Marty,.the language " sole discretion," 20 2 on what kind of hearing is that? And can (inaudible) 21 judicial review? MR. MALSCH: I assume so, yes. 23 MR. KELLEY: That also highlights the problem earlier
' Ace-Feddal Reportees, f ac. .
g gi g g g i 25
- , a .
70 dkw 4 1 MR. MALSCH: That's correct. 2 MR. KELLEY: It should be pointed out, I think. 3l MR. MALSCH: 'Also, we ought to probably reference I ( 4! the other sections that we need flexibility -- probably say, i Sl " sole discretion" and " discretion". 6 .MR. KELLEY: They're in sole discretion; I'd rather 7' just put in a line that says, "shall . Tot be reviewable in any cour t. " That's close enough. 8 9 MR. MALSCH: Okay. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: We did in ours -- we also 10
)) had decided whether it would be formal or informal?
MR. MALSCH: That's right. We said, "the 12 Commission so shall preside, and the hearing, whether in (~ accordance with 504 or Bakke 6 or Bakke 7 or otherwise, shall be determined by the Commission by the nature of the factual issues of the dispute." COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, you don't need all that. MR. MALSCH: No, but I think in our version there was probably more of an implication that a court can review our choice of procedures to see whether they aligned properly with the major factors in the dispute. Here we draft -- 21 it's much more in terms of our discretion (inaudible).
, 22 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Onward.
23 MR. MALSCH: I think that wraps up the interim 24 : Ac.6d.,oi Report.<i inc- seetion. 25 s
I { 71 dkw 5 I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Good. 2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: We are now natisfied with I 3l a 44-page draft, page (inaudible)?
/ I 1 1 4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think it cleans up page 24 1
5' as well as page 25. 6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: And 26. 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And 20. We're now on 27 with 8 early site approval. 9 On early site approval, what is the -- 10 MR. MALSCH: Okay. First issue is, again, the old 11 issue of confining it to thermal neutron power generation 12 facilities, versus our version, which had production or ( 13 utilization facilities. l l 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now, here I think there's real 15 merit, because this is just the early site proceeding, and 16 that's just what you want to do, whether it's a standard j7 design, or something you're going to rush forward with, or 18 s mething you're going to be very deliberate and cautious with. So I would recommend that we go to production or 39 20 utilization. MR. MALSCH: Now, do you -- in our version, we have 21 again here, I think, excluded demonstration plants. Yes, we 22
\' have. Do you want-to still exclude those, or (inaudible) 23 pr duction and utilization facilities?
24 Ace f edercl Repor*ers, Inc. , , , 25
I 72
, !j dkw 6 of fact. It seems to me that the early -- the merits of settling 1l' '
i ,
- 2 ;- the land-use question early is, is that the -
d i 3l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Some of the standards and 4 i ( aj concepts involved in early siting would be very hard to square with demonstration;'that is, at the state planning process, 5, 6 state energy funds, state determination of need. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think if we wanted to put a 7 8 dem nstration, you were thinking about a site as a potential 9 place for a demonstration, it would be in those terms that y u w uld say, I want a site review on this site, and what 10 +
))
I plan to put there is a demo project of the following dimensions. And it wo"ld seem to me -- (~ 13 , are likely -- that regional arrangements are a mistake; with that sort of thing in mind. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Where the problems -- and 16 let's say you wanted to do an early siting review, wanted to a few years ago. Any indication that the state could make a need-for-power -- what you're saying for a demonstration facility.la that there is no need for power calculation involved ? CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, I.think that's right. It's 21 a -- a demo project has to be justified on the positive side, g 22; I on the benefit side, in terms of the f act that it's an 23 l appropriate.necessary step in.the progression of the 24 4.. Federal Reporters, ined technology , and once implemented , that technology has benefits. 2S I I l i , I
'I
, _ . 11
,e <, 1
! 73 l 1
dw 7 1 But this particular plant may or may not produce anything 2- useful in the way of electricity. 3 However, there is a fair question in saying, look, ( 4 if you're going to talk about site permits with 10-year lives, 5 maybe that is just too long ahead to try to anticipate what a 1 6 demo plant might look like. And it might be just as well to l l I 7 reocognize that difficulty. 8 There are some practical difficulties in scoping 9 the envelope to represent the plan, or a demo plan, which ic ! 10 only a misty vision. i 11 So I don't know, I guess I wouldn't.have much ! 12 difficulty with pulling demos out of it if you wanted to. (" 13 MR. MALSCII: That would make it consistent with the
)4 section on combined permits and licenses, which --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't we do'that? 15 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: If there's any -- I don't j 16 have a strong feeling the other way, either, because if you 37 always have that dichotomy -- we're sitting here, we know it's 18 fairly unlikely, or whatever the conflict involved. So really 39
*" ' " "9 # " ~~
" **"*E ^ *#
20 people looking at this bill (inaudible) . CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
- 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Thermal neutron, or --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, but not so much that, 24 , Ace-Federal Resortersi inc. as whether it could be production and utilization,.or excluding 25 t
'L- _ _ _ _ .____ _ _ ___ _t__ __
i
. 74 dkw 8 j; demos and including demos.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We just excluded demos, after 3 thoughtful deliberation. ( Other commentary here? 31 j MR. MALSCH: I've already pointed out, that unlike 5 1 ur version, this bill calls for mandatory formal hearings 6 1 on issuance of site permits. l 7 I'm not sure it appears here, but -- but I'd be 8 (inaudible). 9
" ' "" * "
- Y ""Y "# '
10 MR. MALSCH: I think they say it again in this sectior ..
)
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And we did what? MR. MALSCH: We provided opportunity for a formal l"" 13 hearing, upon request of interested third -- l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don' t think that's much of a -- 15 MR. MALSCH: (Inaudible) going to be asking for hearings anyway, so -- 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't think it matters, because 18 90 percent.of all. cases will have requests, and whether or 19 . not requests, it doesn't seem to me -- well, you do have to 20 convene a board, and go forward, and the staff presented 21 arguments, and get the question by the board. But that's
; 22 4-generally a procedure which works through in, you know, not 23 excessive ~ time , so --
'24 : ,
Aa. Federal Reorters. Inc. MR. MALSCH: Yes, I think the comment is just that 25 l m
75
.. i.
~dkw 9 -1 the concept of mandatory formal hearings, when there are no i
2! issues, are kind of silly. 3l On the other hand, there's an advantage in saying I $ -( 4 that, by God, there's going to be a hearing (inaudible) without l 5 having ' to give a lot of qualifications about people requesting 6 and stuff like that. 7 It sounds natural to say that, even though as a matter of administrative law, it sounds silly to hold one. I've i 8 9 been through a number of them that are pretty silly. 10 Okay, D -- on page 27.
;) COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The thrust of which is? I l
MR. MALSCH: What it does is, the first time it ) ) 12 1 specifi s contents of a site permit application. (- 13 i 1 MR. KENNEKE: It doesn't really apply completely 34 to production and utilization facilities? 15 MR. MALlCH: No.
)
MR. Kr NNEKE : This is really keyed to reactors. MR. MALSCH: Yes. For exan.ple , tnermal power level; g you wouldn't have power level, you'd have thruput or something; seismic geological, or -- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, did you change this 21 to production and utilization facilitics? 22 ,(-
- MR. MALSCH: Yes, except for demonstration plants.
23 l 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I can fix the -- all you'd need i 24 l
- Ace reduci e,poreers, toc.- to do in-1 is say, and thenul power level or production rate, 25 i
I f
.
- 76 1
d;w LO 1j would be -- I t COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Or the capacity. gj I 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, or production capacity
< l 4 of the facilities, and that would fix that.
1 5 Now, looking down the list -- ] COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Actually, you could just 6 say, capacity of the facility; cover them all. Something -- 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Good. Itow about that? 8l I Now, with regard to the list -- in previous drafts l 9 this is where we were scratching our heads and saying, here 10 1 for the first time in the Atomic Energy Act is inention of
))
thermal effluent, I think. 12 (" MR. MALSCH: Because of drafting problems, it's t 13 crept in in prior versions, too. I think we've got to keep it separate. Otherwise you end up being very fancy and saying, 4 except in the case where the site is doing NEPA review -- surely we don't want to have the implication in this section. Notwithstanding-the fact that the state is doing a NEPA review, the Commission still has to ask for thermal effluent in (inaudible). 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So we really ought to strike 21 4 (b)? 22 I MR. MALSCH: I'd strike 4 (b) and 5. 23
. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And 5.
24 AceJedecol Reporters, Inc. That' -- we strike no t becuase we don ' t' vant the 25 ! I
77 dkw 11 1 information, but because it gets complicated having (inaudible) 2l' Atomic Energy Act. There's no other -- l 3! Then the question is, is the list of much use? . i 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's see, I don't understand ; l
\
5 this. I mean, don't we worry about all kinds of effluents? I 1 6 Not just radiological effluents? 7 MR. MALSCH: Oh, we are. Except, though, in' g some circumstances the state will be doing the NEPA review o rather than us. i 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And? f l 11 MR. MALSCH: So you would have to avoid the l l 12 implication that in those circumstances, we have to get the l ( )3 application to us information on nonradiological impact. 34 More properly, that would go to the state. ! COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why do you have to indicate 15 what's in the application? 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You don't. The question is just,'whether you -- whether -- why we don't put a period up 18 under (b), each application under subsection (a) shall be 9 in writing and contain such information as shall be required 20 by the Commission to determine the suitability of the site for its intended purpose, period. i How about that? 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Good. 24 , A M ed v el Rep w .<i. toc.. That has the advantage, also COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: 25,
.I l
i
!I i.
73 dkw 12 1l of making it shortor. 2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I would note, though, that 3 in the letter describing that, that there are also concerns , 4 about some of the individual criteria, so that someone looking-5 at it just doesn't say, well, that's the commission taking 6 out the specific, figuring they'd rather redesign. We'd have 7 at least those specifics in, and just put it back in casually. 8 Because they ought to know that if they want to put it back 9 in, they'still ought to get back to it, talk about some of l l 10 the individual items. jj CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. Is that fair, Bill and 1 12 Marty? Really, the reason for taking it out is, if you're g ng av a s , why, one ought to think whether this is -- 13 l g you know, we just haven't studied whether this is really -- touches all the major elements or not, and then there is the difficulty of mixing the Atomic Energy Act with NEPA with regard to the -- and those are the reasons we think it better to leave to crule-making or staff the information.
.MR. KENNEKE: In our current usage, suitability is 1
strictly (inaudible), right? That's the term, the code work 20 ; to the staff, at least. 21 l MR. MALSCH: As it appears in the Act and as it 22 (- . appears in the regulations, it means safety. Suitability. 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY : What does it make you do? l A&Fedarol Reoarters. Inc. MR. KENNEKE: Only safety, rig h't? 25; I m
l l 79 dkw 13 1 COMP 4ISS10NER BRADFORD: Do courts construe it that. I 21 way?
- 3. MR. MALSCH: No, but the way we'd use it in k context, it's clear that's what we've meant. '
4 5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, I suppose NEPA I l 6 more or less for review, but I.would be a little surprised if I 7 the court took the same -- it's not the normal use of the 8 w rd " suitability ." l 9 MR. MALSCH: Oh, expect -- where we have used it, l l 10 we've always been clear that what we're talking about was
); suitability from the safety standpoint. If you just used the w rd " suita bility," you wouldn't know whether it was safety, 12
( 13 r envir nmental, or both. l g MR. KENNEKE: So you're still left with a question here of whether you wanted to include NEPA? 5 MR. MALSCH: No, because it's in the Atomic Energy
)
Act, and that has been construed as not applying on that matter. It's only a safety matter -- by the 5th Circuit. Pre-NEPA, 1968 case. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Onward. 20 Okay, anything in C? Because C is all new. MR. MALSCH: It's also unnecessary. They added 22 t-been -- 23 They've added in what appears to be a standard Ae. %rof R ooners. inc. briefing -- 25 I
. - m_.
~ _
l 80 4 , dkw 14 1 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Now, here, we're talking i 2 !l about suitability. And we're saying,- the Commission determines i 3! 4 the proposed site is mitable for the construction and operation 4 of the facility described in the operation, consistent 5 with public health and safety, and protection of the environ-6 ment. MR. MALSCH: That would be a problem; that would 7 4 have Fo come out. 8
- MR. KENNEKE
- And isn't it inconsistent with the 9
bottom of page 29, number 4? Why have they limited it just 10 3) to thermal -- MR. MALECH: Well, we have to make some formal g changes, on the top -- on the bottom of page 29, and on the (~ g top of 30. l MR. KENNEKE: Well, I guess my question is, if they 15 had drafted it as being thermal neutron power to begin with, up in A, why way down there say that (inaudible) is valid only for thermal power?
. MR. MALSCH: Yeah, just for emphasis, I guess.
19 ' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Why are we so anxious 20 to keep the environment out of the Atomic Energy Act? MR. MALSCH: Well, the only problem with it is, 22 i, since we've treated'it' separately historically, we've enabled 23 ourselves to have a separate NEPA delegation section, without 24 l AceJederal Repwen, Inc. f dispersing it all throughout the Atomic Endrgy Act. Once , 25 o
.i
h 81 l dkw 15 1 3 you start interspersing it throughout the Atomic Energy Act, ll 2 F then the NEPA delegation section gets awfully fancy to try to I 3Il make, to try to do. i It has an advantage in keeping your 4 (inaudible) Atomic Energy Act on the one hand; NEPA on the 5: other hand. 6 It really would get very fancy to try to have a l 7 NEPA delegation section at the same time internal throughout 1 8 this bill reference to the environment. I I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You'd have to cite every ) 9 l 10 section where it appears in the Atomic Energy Act. l MR. MALSCH: Or every place it appears, you have to
))
add, "except as provided in" section whatever it is, which 12
# #8 l
(~ 13 ", EPA. , ja It's just unnecessary. l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: A structural matter, but the i 15 recommendation is to keep the separation. All right -- MR. MALSCH: The big question is , do you want C g at all? CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Does it have any advantage? I MR. MALSCH: I don't think so. It has a standard, ! 21
~
but the standard is cosely -- 22
.t
- COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What does it do?
23 MR. MALSCH: -- the standard is so loose, it 24 , j - A(gJederal Reporters, Inc.l: doesn't'tell you anything. l 251 l il
i 82 [ . dkw 16 1 , MR. KENNEKE: What about item 3, top of page 29? 2 MR. MALSCH: That should probably be kept. 3 MR. KENNEKE: That's a useful -- I ( 4 MR. MALSCH: Yes. 5 MR. KENNEKE: That's a key item of this fall reform 6 legislation that become final -- 7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What does that mean? l l 8 MR. MALSCH: That just means that site permits ] 9 (inaudible) review just as construction permits and operating licenses. We had done it a little differently in our bill, j 10 i jj but the effect, I think, is the same. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, let's take out 12 anything that doesn't need to be in there. ( 13
)g MR. KENNEKE: Put that up under A, then.
i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Wait, well, what happened g 16
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I am entertaining a recommendation l 17 i i
to strike C-1 and C-2 and put C-3 at an appropriate -- retain 8 it and put it in an appropriate place. i 19 ; MR. MALSCH: You don ' t need -2, because you've said these proceedings are on the record. And the AEC already l 21 { requires, in such cases, the. Commission will make specific !> 22 I.. findir.g s . So-again, you don't need it. 23 In fact, that might have caused a problem with 24 , Aie-f ederel Reconers; inc. What -- by this Congress intended thereby to amend APA 26l 1 l , I
l B3 i I dkw 171 section (inaudible). 2! CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: D? l 3, MR. MALSCH: D is the duration question: how long ( ) 4 site permits are good for. ) i I 5; COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: 10 years are recommended, i 6 unless extended. 7 MR. MALSCH: I think we said, up to 10 unless i 8' extended; they say, 10. 9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Which I think doesn't make 10 a lot of difference. 11 MR. MALSCH: No. 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't think so either, and I ( 13 think their provision for a renewal subject to the rules and 14 regulations that the Commission may deem appropriate is fair 15 enough. 16 MR. CASE: I've got a problem with the renewal. 37 JI think the way it's written -- because I think it makes 18 s mebody to make application for a renewal, and at the 39 time of the renewal, and the site permit continues in 20 offect until the staff has finished its evaluation. 21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It says, no less than 12 n r m re than 18 months before1the expiration. 22 23 S yuv . g t a 12 month period for review. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. 24 Ace 6derel Reportees. Inc. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why do we need this, no
84 dkw L8 1I more than.187 l 1 2'; MR. CASE: The timely renewal is a problem. 3! COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: They don't want them to 4 come in and apply, and say, at the end of ten years, say, i 5 now we'd like a five-year renewal added onto that. 6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But that would get sort 7 of taken care of by the fact the staff won't do anything 8l f r 9 years, unless somebody wants the site. 9 (Simultaneous discussion.) 10 MR. CASE: Suppose you don't agree with it, and l jj you're fighting (inaudible). Who do I have prove tha.s, now that the site is no longer any good? 12 OMMISSIOER GINSM : Well, we'd have to go W ough ( 13 g a hearing. MR. CASE: While we're litigating, this site permit remains good. % g COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why do you say it remains g d? Where does it say that? 8 MR. CASE: Because it's a timely renewal. MR. MALSCH: Under the EPA, if you have a license of a -- for an activity of a continuing nature, and you apply, in a timely fashion, for renewal, you can continue the 22
\'
activity _ until the Commission disposes of your renewal applicatio n. 23 For example, let's say an operating license that expires on A<+-Federot Reportert Inc. June 1st; you apply, let's say, in a timely fashior. -- 25
.2
85 dkw 19 1. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: We've got lots of materials I 2' licences -- 3 MR. MALSCH: That's right. And by June 1st you l t' 4f haven't heard, you don ' t shut down; you just keep going until 3 you hear from the Commission. . 6 I think Ed's problem is, supposing that they make 7 a' timely application here. The staff says, oh my God, this is 8 awful. The permit, we just can't extend (inaudible) . Okay, 9 we're in the middle of the hearing, and we haven't finally 10 disposed of it. It's now beyond ten years. But someone files jj an application referencing it. I think it's maybe kind of 12 unlikely. But if it happened, then technically -- ( 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It seems to me if you had a case ja strong enough so that, you know, you felt very concerned about itf and so on, wouldn't you have enough of a case 15 to do something else about it. 16 MR. MALSCH: What you do is issue an immediately 77 1 jg effective order (inaudible). MR. CASE: You can't run it before the Board. You 39 know I haven't got the authority when -- 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.: Well, but you can take the argument to the Board and ask them to revoke it. 22 L I would think having it continue, if you need a little more than a' year to complete the review, might be a 24 , Aufederal Reoorters. Inc. desirable circumstance. 25
n
.c N
. L 86 I
dkw 20 I ,! . MR. CASE: Yes, it might be. l' 2 I guess what I ought to focus on is how it seems i 3l that I want the application (inaudible). At least a year before -- 4l! MR. MALSCH: (Inaudible) not more than 18 months i 5 prior. i 61 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, first of all, what's l 7 . wrong with them coming in a year later and asking for a ten-t 8! year extension? I mean, that'll only take them to year 11. 9 I mean, they're not going to -- 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I'll be a rare bird that does
]
l 11 that. 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, somebody may want ( 13 to come in after year 5 and get to year 15. He's not going to ja get to year 20. 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The suggestion then is what?
. l 16 to remove the 18? ^)
)7 -
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, don't you think the 18 f review f the suitability ought to come fairly close to the j9 end of the period? COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I would think so. 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: You shouldn't be able to 21 m in in year one and get the extension from -- I think 22 l ! the extension really doesn't work that way, that if you come 23 24[.ininyear1andgeta 10-year extension, that doesn't mean Ace federal Reporurs. lec.1 y u r getting a year (inaudible) to year 20. 25 e I 6 1.
87 dkw 21 ) COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, you ought to be able 3-2 to get only 10 years ahead. And that strikes me as not l 3 unreasonable. I 4 In other words, suppose you were at 6, and you'd like to get to year 16. 5 COMMISSIONER ITNNEDY : Yeah, I know. The trouble 6 with that is, that that gives you.-- if you allow that, 7 you're going to have to put.some kind of language in to g prevent them from coming and filing one every year. 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, there are (inaudible) O and so on.
))
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yeah, I see what you mean. In order to keep a site viable, 10 years -- about 10 years {' . from the date, whenever the date is. 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes. And I would say, 15 if they're paying their -- you know, if the fee is right, why not do it? 17 MR. MALSCH: Well, this says, you can only get 18 renewal for additional project hearings. 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That sounded faintly commercial- . 20 Do you think we could make this business pay? 21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, the trouble with that 22 ( i is, you're. going to have staff tied up who are essentially 23 senseless exercises continually, to say nothing of the fact 24 # Aie-rea4ral Reoorteri. ine. that every year -- every_ time this happens, it's going to be 25
]B
'. 88 dkw 22 I y litigated, or could be.
2l MR. CASE: Mandatory hearing. . l 4 3! COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Mandatory hearing, exactly. ( That's what they're going to di COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: 1 5l have to think about. I 1 6l But on the other hand, I couldn't imagine -- i 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Certainly not every year, but 8 q overy three or five years, you might just find a guy who'd 9 like to keep protecting his site out there, figuring that the l 10 renewal would be substantially casier than letting the permit 11 die and starting over again. And that it's worth it to him. I 12 to (inaudible). ( 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, you know, he's got 14 that authority now. He's got that authority essentially now. i 15 I'm beginning to think the 18 months is probably too short, 16 given Ed's concern. Say 24 months, which is close enough to 17 the end, certainly in light of what you're saying, Rick, 18 certainly close enough to the end. And giving two years 39 ought to be able to get the thing through. And if it didn't, 20 then I'd be prepared -- after two years, meantime -- I'd be prep red to accept the rules of the APA that it would continue. 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I guess I wouldn't like it 22 ( into -- ; 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: A time frame? 24 AdFederal Reporten, lnc. ' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That's right, in ten years -- 25 l i i l
.' 89~
I 5 dkw 23 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. . 2 COMMISSIONER GILItISKY : So you ought to be able to 3 get 10 years ahead of where you are. ( CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I've got to go to Gaithersburg. 4 ;- 5' I foolishly agreed to go and talk to a lunch which I'm not 6 going to be able to eat. It's probably just as well for my 7 lunch. 8 The not less than 12 months, I think, is okay. We 9 could also do this in a rule, but if they'd like to put it in 1 10 here, why, grand. Not less than 12 months to file for renewal. l l 11 I think you'd make at least that much time. l 1 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, and from Ed's point ( 13 f view, 24 months (inaudible) -- j4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Not less than 24 months. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, now let's decide -- let's 15 first of all decide what tha not less than ought to be. I 16 give you choices: 12, 18,or 24?
)7
* ^
- 18 MR. MALSCH: 18.
)9
"^ ^ " * "" "
- 20 Okay, now second question: do you want to put any limit on the other side? Those in favor of a downside limit, 22 k,,
vote aye. 23 [One "aye".) 24 ' Acom.ml Report.rs inc.ll CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Those opposed? < 25 i
f 90 dkw 24 (No audible response.) lf I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What do we do on two to two? 2f 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But I would also add i' , 4j (inaudible) ten years from the time they get it. 5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yeah, but that's a rolling, 6 overy year exercise. 7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: My other concern with that j l g is that the -- to the extent that there are concerns that might j 9 be raised against the renewal, I assume they'll be one of 10 two sorts: either that the site is, for some reason, no longer ] 11 suitable; or that, for some reason, the plant -- the state's 12 energy outlook is somehow changed, and that their planning (^ 13 Process (inaudible). 1 ja For that to have any meaning, I don't think you could ! l l 15 come five years before the proposed expiration -- well, maybe 16 y u could. Well, then you see, what happens is, that instead j7 of a look every ten years at the site, the state's got to determine five years in advance of the expiration. 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Which is five years after 39 m e s original -- 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Which is five years after it made its original -- I just don't know that that process 22 is_very m aningful, if y u wr te it on that basis, in 23 rder to be applicable.. 24 Acehderal Reportes, fx. 25y a
91 dkw251[be two years after its original determination, and 8 years P 2l before the determination of the original decision, and still 3! cxtending on 10 years from the time it makes its second one. 5 4 j COMMISSIONR BRADFORD: Well, bub Vic's point is, Vic 5 would change that so it would only go out -- it would only l 6 go after 12. j i 7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: No, no, it's always 10 years 8! in advance of the date. 9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, the way it reads now l l 10 that's right. 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: No, no, I'm talking about 12 Vic's concept. Yes, it would go on to year 12, and then to ( 13 year 13, and then to year 14, and so on. ja It would just roll forward. I mean, I could see 15 the advantage to this. But I can see it as an administrative 16 nightmare. And I'm not sure -- and I'm concerned about what
)7 you're saying, Peter, I'm not sure that the decision-making 18 pr cess would have much meaning.
t j9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, except somebody who did this ten timeseaould-have to pay ten times the fee. 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I know. But, you know, I l 21 ; don't care what the fees are. 7 r CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I perceive an opportunity for 23 g in, here. 24 Ace Fedarol Reporters, lac. . 25 g ; 1 , H > r I l i l
1 8 6
. 92 dkw 26 1, with our salaries. But whatever-- hopefully -- but whatever --
2 but seriously, the question I have, if you're going to do this, 3 what is the -- the decisions that could be made along that line k- 4 could be incrementally small enough hat you'd never come to the 5 kind of re-examination of the fundamental planning conceptions l 6 that you're talking about. l 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How about not less -- 18 8: months before, but not more than -- no more than 5 years? l 9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, okay. ) l 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I'm not sure I can swallow j) 5, but I can go to 3. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I don't care. I mean, I 12 1 could be happy in that range. ) COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I really don't care; 4. I 34 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, but where -- are we l 15 1 l adding 10 to the original 10. ! 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, when we. redo it it reissues i 17 l 1 and it's a 10-year from date of the receipt. 8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, no, this one said 5, ; 19 1 didn't it? This was a renewal for 5 years. H 1 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, it's 10 years. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I guess I would not put 22 6-any downside limit -- 23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You could only renew it for Ace Fedwol Reporters, Inc, ((yg' years. 25
.o
I
.* 93 dlkw 27 1l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would make it for as long l
l 2'j as what it says. t 3l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, not less than 18 months ( 4, nor more than 4 years prior to the expiration, and its additiona 5 10 year periods. 6 How about that? 7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is it clear that it's from 8 the time of the granting of the new -- , , 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It says, may renew a site 10 permit for additional ten year period, so I think that's pretty 11 explicit. MR. MALSCH: We could be more explicit. 12 (- 33 ,, , CPMMISSIONER BRADFOR,D: ,I would suggest being explici ; j4 on that, from the date of renewal. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: From the date of renewal. 15 What was the argument for having this limit, that 16 g the lower -- it's to avoid people coming in over and over 18 "5" "* COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, and the reason for
)9
~
av iding that was, it seemed to me that at least to the 20 extent that there's a state process involved here, too, for that process to -- for there to be a meaningful review of the w promises on which the site was originally found suitable, a 23 certain amount of' time would have to pass (inaudible). A:Medero! Reporters, Inc. # (Simultaneous discussion.) 25 l l l i
0
' 94
- d dkw 28 1 'g CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Gentlemen, I leave to 2[0Commissioner
-- Dick, will you provide over the balance of this session, and see if we can get to the end of the rest 3l I'
i di of this. 5 Marty, you've probably got a few more things to 6 mention, and if you can manage it, that would be highly 7 desirable. I will withdraw, and don't forget to make a ruling 8[ 01 the' Sunshine aspects. 9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: We're trying to get through 10 this section 193. 11 CIIAIRMAN HENDRIE: Right, if possible. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: All right. Marty, where 12 ( 13 are we? , ja CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I'm sure you won't get beyond 15 that. MR. MALSCH: We're up to number 3 on 29. This ,.3, 16 is added.
)7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Shall we look at 3 on page 18 j9 29?
MR. CASE: I need someMng on wMch to Unaud hle) 20 g a 10 year period. How about the environment, Marty? 22 ( Well, the environment would have to -- MR. MALSCH: 23 l 24 again, would have to come out to make it consintent, but -- Ace Federal Reporten, ine, , 25
)
l
,,, q.
i 95 Y l I , dkw 29 1 if you take the on~ironment out of there,.too, then NEPA doesn't l 2l give a.any basis-for revoking a license. 3 MR. MALSCH: Oh, I think we'd argue it does. 4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What would your basis for 5l revocation be if you decided the thing would, in fact, have an 6 adverse'effect on the environment? 7 MR. MALSCH: The legal theory? 8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes. 9 MR. MALSCH: It would be that NEPA has read into 10 the overall act that whatever remedies you have (ii, audible) 11 section on public health and safety, you also have them for . 12 protection of the environment. ( 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: You mean public health i 14 and safety includes the environment because NEPA -- MR. MALSCH: That's sort of the way we read it in. 15 There are some limits to that. But I think we could extend 16 3 j7 (inaudible). { COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Can't the NEPA section deal i 18 j9 with precisely that point? MR. CASE: In other words. ; 20 I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: To make it explicit -- it g I seems to me perfectly logical they would be one of the I 22 J (. fundamental considerations, either by a state or by us, 23
)
1 or both. And can't it be dealt with? 24 j , l At Fedral Reportm, Inc. ! The only reason why I have reservations l MR. MALSCH: 25
2 i
'96- . l dkw 30 .1j is, the way th'e NEPA section is presently drafted, it's in l l
2 terms of not giving us additional authority to do things, but l
- 3. rather,.giving us authority simply-to turn stuff over to some- ;
.4 body.
{ 5l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: How does it (inaudible)
. with the stete. In order to get a revocation based on 6
1 environmental considerations, if in fact you want that,'the j 7 . state would have to make a NEPA finding that, somehow, 8 things have changed, the environment has been changed. They 9 10 w uld then present that to us in the form of a request for j) revocation, because the public's health and safety was in .: l danger. 12 MR. MALSCH: No, they would simply -- well, the bi]1 l 13
. (" later on doesn't go into that amount of detail. I think what g
w ld happen would be that since we turned over the NEPA 15 function to the states, the states' would, in their procedures, ; have procedures for revoking, suspending or amending, because [ 17 i
\
of environmental reasons.
.18 And since they have the overall NEPA function, if 19 they notify us that they have decided the permits' revoked I 20 on environmental grounds, I think that's it, as far as we're' l 21 concerned.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, what permit have they i (.- 23 l l granted? 24 i AsFederal Repeers, Inc. . MALSCH: Well, they'd probably be granting a 25 ,
- I 97 dkw 31 1 permit. But literally, the control would be on our permit.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: They can't notify us they've 3 revoked -- unless it's a separate (inaudible) -- they can't 4 notify us they've revoked it.
-(
5 MR. MALSCH: Right. The notification would be that 6 they -- 7 MR. KELLEY: They make determinations, don't they? 8 MR. MALSCH: They de termine tha t it should be 9 controlled. MR. KELLEY: You mean in terms of cooling towers 10
.or something like that?
))
l MR. MALSCH: Something like that. 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Okay, they determine that f* 13
\_
it should be revoked -- 34 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: And we are bound by such a determination, are we not? COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, except that Ed then has to proceed under the revocation section, which talks only 8 about public health and safety, common defense and security. MR. MALSCH: Oh, I see your problem. I guess maybe the better suggestion would be to 21 take care of this in the later NEPA section. 22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Okay, (inaudible) take care ('-- 23 of it? 24 4,-Feoeral Reporten. lx., MR. MALSCH: Yes. < 25
.i
l
-98 l
dkw 32 MR. CASE: How important is that "only" in there? !
} f.
2 "Only" (inaudible). 3 MR. MALSCH: That means you've got to find that or 1 ( you can't do it. ) 5 4l ' 1 l
! MR. CASE: What does it add -- how is it different l 5l 1
6{ if y u take it out? MR. MALSCH: Well, if you take it out, it's the 7 implication that you can only do it, if that's the case. If 8; I l 9 1 you leave it in, there's just no doubt about it. l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What do you have in mind, Ed? 10
;) MR. CASE: Well, you see, it puts a burden on the f
staff if soisthing comes up. And I'm just trying to figure out 12 1 I what the (inaudible) . 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I don't see that it makes 14 1 any different. I MR. CASE: I have to show somebody that it's a 16 L 1 major new consideration and it has a significant impact on i public health and safety. 18 MR. MALSCH: There's a drafting problem here, and 19
- that 3 -- remember now, the one instance in which a question would likely.come up as to, let's say, amending or modifying a 21 site permit would be, in a construction normit proceeding 22 referencing.the site permit.
23 I Now, in that case, the provision on re-litigation 24f And that is difforently, worded than this. Ao-Federot Reporters. Inc.j of issues applies. 25 il
. 99 l
dkw 33'1, 17 hen I road this, the problem that occurred to me
- 2 is, there's the implication that if you're in a construction i 3 permit proceeding and you want to raise a site issue, you've i
I I ( 4 got one standard to meet; if you're not, you're just in midair; i 5 you've got this standard to meet;_and why should there be any 6l difference? 7 This is a little stronger than the relitigation 8 section. 9 MR. DIRCKS: Is the word, "majof and"significant," i 10 the troublesome aspects? ! jj MR. MALSCH: Yes, but on the other hand, they're 12 what makes the section significant. MR. KENNEKE: New is -- health (inaudible) and 13 ( . significant is elsewhere. 34 MR. DIRCKS: It's like the national (inaudible) 15 where they try to give major action a significant impact. $ 16 ,, i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: You're certainly better 7 off with major, for God's sake. If you came up with a minor new consideration that still had a significant impact on the ,' 19 , publics' health -- 3 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: How could it be a minor 21
! new consideration if it had a significant impact, you know?
( Let 's delete the word 'hajor." 23 And why is the word "only" -- well, if it doesn't A&Imjeral Reporters, Inc. sa "on " it im ies that there is some other consideration 25
'l i
i
'100 dkw 34 .1 unstated.
~2 MR. MALSCH: It eculd be taken te define (inaudib'e) 4 3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, if the Congress took
( 4 the word "only" out, then.you could argue from the legislative 3 history, that were the case. But if the bill simply passed i 6 without the word "only" in there, I think you'd still have a 7 hard time-revoking on any other grounds (inaudible) . 8, Werelyou thinking, Ed, that there might be ! 9 (inaudible) -- l 10 MR. CASE: Well, I'm lcoking (inaudible >) on page l ) 11 21. Isn't that where it is, Marty, page 217 1 12 Why does this 3 on page 29 have such a higher h 4
+-
13 barrier than that? . (. 14 MR. MALSCH: Well, it's just that there aren't a maj r new considerations -- which may sound a little stronger 15 ~ than some of the language in the middle of 21. 16 MR. CASE: But I have to find a significant impact.
)7 MR. MALSCH: That's right.
18 MR. CASE: Rather than, it just doesn't comply 39 with the Commission's regulation. 20 MR. MALSCH: Maybe just strike " major". I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's what we did. I 22 l MR. KENNEKE: Marty, as I understand it, now, ' ( 23 i y u'y gn back to this in every place where protection of 24 A a w ei R m n m , inc. the environment appears, like page 21; you'd still be deleting it. 25 4
i d
- i '
101 dkw 351; MR. MALSCH: I'd be deleting it. 1, 2 i> MR. KENNEKE: Okay, that may want to -- in each I 3l place, you'll have to make a decision whether to recommend ( 4j that that particular concern be dealt with in the NEPA 1 5 section, or whether it should simply be deleted. 1 J l 6 I take it the letter-- the ultimato letter will 1 7 spell out what you're deleting and what you're not. MR. MALSCH: What we'll have to -- yes, we'll have 3 9 to, as we'do it, think about it, and make sure we're not l 10 1 sing something in the process, that we don't.plek up, by j l virtue of NEPA as it stands, or the NEPA section in here, 11 12 as it will be when we're finished with it. Is the decision then (inaudible) the language? 13 (' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Right, 21. 34 M ON A ORD: Well, that's right, although 15 1 subsection C isn't actually the section that you issue the permit pursuant to, is it? 7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, it was. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, now I guess it's 19 ; subsection A. I MR. MALSCH : Now it's A, as in our draft. 21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: So I think probably you 22 (* want to take that out anyway, because we've already decided 23 l we wanted to refer to production and utilization facilities. 24 AceJederal Reporrm, Inc.j But the reason is, because subsection C is'(inaudible). 251 l Il l
l 102 dkw 36 1; COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, not only that, but 2l when.you get to the next page, there's reference again -- t 1 3i MR MALSCH: To scismic, meteorological, hydrologic,
.( 4; which we took out.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : Okay. ; 2 l' MR. MALSCH: Now, we need something that looks like 4 6!i I 7* 7. And we've got that in our bill already. 8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Looks like what? MR. MALSCH: It indicates clearly that the 9 Commission can ask for information at a site permit, that's 10 jj all. Top of 28. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Oh, okay. 12 e MR. MALSCH: Okay, now the E. 33 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I have some fairly 34 substantial pr blems on E, I think. (Inaudible) want to 15 hold on that. 'I also have to go. 16 ., MR. MALSCH: Okay. E is a separate part, anyway.
)7 W 'v finished the site permits discussion; we're not into 18
)9 construction and (inaudible) sites.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, can we go forward to 20 F and.G without havin g dealt with E? MR. MALSCH: We can go F, G, H. 22 (, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: All.right, let's do so. MR. MALSCH: Okay. F, we've discussed. This is 24 Ac,Jederal Reporton, ine. the section of the bill that ties in the generic need for 25 l - l>
I i i
, -, ! l
* ! 103 l.
dkw 371 h power determination as a part of the long-range planning Il 2 j. of section lll to the site permits. I think we discussed this the day before yesterday. 3f ( 4 .This is where the tie-in is. 5l MR. DIRCKS: And this is consistent with our own 6l draft, is it? MR. MALSCH: Well, I drafted it, and had this 7 8{ concept. But it's consistent with what -- we believe this 9 thing is consistent with the authority (inaudible) the other 10 day. jj COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Is it defined what a generic future need is? 12 MR. MALSCH: No, not specifically. 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Do we know even vaguely 74 r
"^ 8 ;
15 MR. DIRCKS: This would not allow DOE to make a 16 l finding for production and utilization facilities? 7 MR. MALSCH: No, because I think those earlier 18 sections have been trying to (inaudible). MR. KENNEKE: Why do we look here and in the 20 earlier section to electric power facilities generally in 21 ! what is purported to be a nuclear licensing bill? l l 22 ! [ MR. MALSCH: I think it's because it didn't make ! 23 much senso to1the drafters, in the long-range planning session, 24, Y Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.' to confine all the long-range planning stuff (inaudible). 25 !
.1r'- ,
t
- 00 104 dkw 38 'l 'We'need advanced planning with regard to the 2 early site approval, and now the whole idea of.early site 3 approval.does that. It creates --
4 . COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: No, this is before early I 5 site approval. 6 MR. CASE: This is before that. 7 MR. MALSCH: I know. But as far as we're concerned, g for nuclear licensing aspects - 9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes. But look -- unless 10 there's -- unless -- I defer.to my colleagues -- unless 11 there's something about this that raises issue unlike -- 12 differing from those that we discusse d the - other day, - and 13 which we agreed, it seems to me there's no sense in rehashing it al , 34 l MR. KENNEKE: Well, there is -- there will be a l 15 1 tie-in later to the funding of -- states. 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: (Inaudible) caught in the 17
)g crossfire.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Does this say that if a 39 state nakes a finding that there's a need -- I don't know -- 20 3,000' megawatts of additional capacity, and then seek them, I g and then for some reason the utility sets out to set aside g .+ 5 sites, each for 1,000 megawatt plant; does that 3,000 23 megawatt determination -- can be used at each of the 5 sites? 24 weJederoi Reponers, in' MR. MALSCH: I' imagine you'd have to have the two 25 1:
l 105 i dkw 39 1 ' coincide. You c< >uldn' t have the generic mean more than it j I l' i says. 2l ,
! l 3I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Why couldn't they just keep ,
( 4 coming in and presenting you with that same finding and l l 5{ 1eaving you -- and you'd say, well, what the hell could you ! l l 6' p saible need 5,000 megawatt plants. And they'd say, that's j i 7 not yours to worry about. l 8, MR. KELLEY: Even a 1,000 projection -- COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I mean, there maybe something l 9 be said for allowing them to set aside more nites. 10 MR. KELLEY: May be. But rather than (inaudible)
))
of the generic powers (inaudible). COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, okay, does anybody 13 want to change this? MR. KEMNEKE: Does this imply that if their finding were made that -- that finding is then made once and for all, that is, who they come in later for construction permit, l I7 j'/[w w yfl Mc w a+~-
]
( (inaucihle) automatic LWA? j 3 18 l MR. MALSCII: We've taken care of that. That'.s 19 i fixed. 1 20 ! s MR. CASE: By saying, we need it again, is that it? j 21 i MR. MALSCll: Well, we fixed it another way; but we ; 22 fixed it so that won't happen. l 23 l MR. CASE: Youlave to define the need for the facility. f'l
'p 24 ,l :i k,,Federot Re [rten, In h MR..KELLEY: For an LWA. <
25i j l l I u b d
1
-<2
,a g . ;
106 I DKW 40 li MR. MALSCH: No, but they could be related. The I l 2j way it stands now, they're not related. i ! 3! COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Let me try to sharpen that, j I ( 4 okay? Will we meet on this again tomorrow morning? SI COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Okay. It's a quick thing. ; I l 6 G and H -- (inaudible) what can we say to that? ! 7 Okay, we need a Sunshine Act. j 81 MR. KELLEY: Yes, we'll need a Sunshine vote to 9 withhold these transcripts until the end of the Congress -- l ALL; AYe-10 11 (Whereupon, at 12:00 o' clock, noon, the meeting was recessed.) I 12 13 . 1 (" - i 14 j 15 l l 16 l l 17 1 18
.19 20 21 22
{ 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc. i 25}}