ML20148K990
| ML20148K990 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/06/1978 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7811200085 | |
| Download: ML20148K990 (31) | |
Text
~..
.r.
/0 crst 97 NUCLEAR RFGULATORY COMMISSION -
IN THE MATTER OF:_
PUBLIC, MEETING DISCUSSION OF LICENSING BILL
(
Place - Washington, D C.
Det*
- Monday, 6 November 1978 Pages 1~ - 29 l
l I
i l
l i
tw.onen.:
(.
(202)347 3700 ACE FEDERAL H.EPORTERS,INC.
~
OfficialReponers g.
444 Ncrth Cccitel Street C"'
7811200OSf NATICNWIDE COVERACE. DAILY 1
,,,,,,,v--
y e,
,---,,--,-,,--,w.
-,w,
, ~, -
.-r-y--,
ar, w,--,,
-,.,s a,-v,,,.-
-e
,,,,,~,,,,-n,,,,
s
, ~.,
ch0214 1
1 DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Itnday, 6 Novedoer 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Wasnington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
Th'is transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general infonna'tional purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final de~terminaticns or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained.herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
e e
- ~ -
a v
ov -,-
e
,-9.-
- 4, s
la UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-CR1214-1
-E. JACKSON:mp 3
' dict' 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 PUBLIC MEETING S'
DISCUSSION OF LICENSING BILL 6
7 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.-
8 Washington, D. C.
9 Monday, 6 November 1978 10 The Commission met, pursuant to notice,,at 1:30 p.m.
11 BEFORE:
12 DR.xJOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 13 VICTOR GILINSKY Commissioner g
RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 14 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner-JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 15 ALSO PRESENT:
16 C. STOIBER 17 J. KELLEY H. SHAPAR 18 A. KENNEKE L. GOSSICK 19 S. CHILK 20 21 22 23 24 2.
rei noorms, w.
25
2 l
CR 1214 JACKSON t-1 mtel PROCEE' DINGS 1
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If the Commission would come to 3,
- order,
, Commissioner Kennedy will be along in a bit.
l 4
I thought it would be useful for the Commission to' j
i 5
meet'this afternoon and discuss at least briefly some initiatives 6
connected with the licensing legislation that. has been the 7
subject of discussion over the past year:
Some initiatives 8
recommended to' us first by Mr. Dingell in a letter of October 10; 9
and secondly, some initiatives were recommended to us by 10 Mr. Udall in a letter of October 25th.
The Commissioners have 11 copies of these, and 1: have also distributed them in case their files were not in first-class order, a copy of the draf t of the l 12 13 bill that we worked on, and it is dated September 26th of last 14 year.
'5 I have replied on an interim basis to Mr. Dingell 16 saying that, after a little discussion, it seemed useful for 17 us to meet and develop our ideas, and I hope that we can set i
the general direction.of the efforts that we will be making overl 18
-1 19 the rest of the year and' going into the spring by the course of i j
l i
20 the discussions here, decide on,' hopefully, offersomeguidancel 21 to counsel's office, who I expect we will ask to do some draf t-22 ing for"us, probably some studies as well.
23 I would note that, while I think in the September 26th 24 draf t and or experiences:of the past year, we have an ample oo at Reporters, Inc.
25 basis,to work ahead on some legislation that might be proposed
(
y.
Ata '2' 3
a 1
on the Comnission's behalf.
But I also do have a little concern; 2
that the nature of the bill, the nature of the bill the
- 4 3
Commission might agree to propose to the Congress might or mightj i-4 not contain all of the elements that the Administration felt 5
appropriate for their version of a licensing bill as presented 6
to the.Ninety-Fifth Congress.
7 So I can proceed down the line, competitive bills or 8
perhaps not competitive, but at least some existing proposals 9
for legislation, I would think the Administration would probably 10 want to have the points that they think ought to be in such 11 legislation represented by some legislative proposals.
And if 12 we work along our lines here to produce one, I can see several 13 bills in hand to be considered by the Congress.
14 Now, maybe that isn't necessarily bad, but it was, you 15 will remember, last September, one of the things we were 16 rather careful to do here in drafting, in our drafting efforts, 17 was to regard these as working papers which we forwarded with 18 a recommendation -- forwarded to the Administration with a 19 recommendation that this sort of language be considered in what 1
20 they had under way.
And we did not present the last September 21 efforts as in any sense an NRC proposal for legislation.
I i
22 think this coming session we may not be able to be in that 23 position.
24 With that as an initial comment, why don't I start
- s rei nn e ms.ine, I
25 at this end and we'll sweep across the table and see what the L
i
.e.
4
4 Eto' 3 1
nature of'the discussion is..
2
~
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'd like to make a number of
~
.3
-comments, Joe.
4 First,'I'd'like to address what I think definitely 5
we must do, and then raise some questions.
What I-believe we 6
must do is provide what I would call a legislative drafting
'7 service.
We do have the detailed knowledge of thefregulations, 8
rules and procedures of the Act in the legal offices of the 9
general counsel'and ELD.
So when the Congress requests that 10 we provide a bill with c'ertain features, I do think we have a 11 responsibility, particularly from the sense of a drafting 12 service, to provide that, and that is completely separate from i
13 whether we support or oppose those features.
14 It is question of the Congress asking, would we-15 draft something, and I think that is part of the professional 16 government service. that we are obligated to do.
So that is 17 point one.
18 But I guess the real question I have -- and I will 19 try 'to. couch it' from the standpoint I assume this may only be 20 a problem or question that I myself have, because I have entered r
21 into this much letter. than the rest of you have, did not go 1
t22 through the development of your positions in the last year.
23 But to?my mind, one of the critical questions is the one raised s
?
I 24 by Mr. Udalllin his last paragraph, where he is basically asking-c% /el Reporters l Inc.
25 if. it is.riecessary to have licensing legislation.
l l
.i
I
'mta '4 5
l 1
I can see three reasons to have licensing legislation, 2
one being is that it is really needed.
There are elements in 3
the current procedures that require legislative changes.
4 The second, for neatness.
There may be items in the 5
current precedures that, although you don't need legislation 6
for, it would be nice to have it, and tidy things up.
7 And the third would be for legislation to support one 8
aspect of energy use.
9 Going backwards through that order, number three, I 10 think, is entirely appropriate for the Energy Department to,
11 sponsor legislation to improve the use of coal and gas and 12 nuclear energy, and the Energy Department is in the business of 13 trying to improve the use, to increase-the availability and use 14 of energy in the United States.
15 As appropriate as it is for the Energy Department, I 16 would presume that it is totally inappropriate for the regula-l 17 tory commission.
18 The second is the question of neatness, tidiness.
I 19 will guess that thdt will be something that, if a bill is j
J l
20 working itself through the legislative process, then you address 21 in addition to other aspects of the bill, what is in it to make ;
22 things neat and tidy.
But I don't think you can introduce a 23 bill and go through the long, arduous process of working with j
24 the Committees, going through the hearings, refining, and so oh r al Reporters, inc.
25 forth, if it is only a cuestion of, it would be nice to have, 1
l i
i n to '5' 6
l i
l 1
but not essential.
I 2
Which gets me down to the first or what is really 3
needed.
I am just speaking for myself.
At come stage in this i
4 process, as we work toward the introduction of whatever we l
{
5 propose next spring, I would need a presentation paper, briefings 6
or discussion by whoever is appropriate, to explain why there 7
are ' things in the current system that need legislative changes.
8 I haven't seen it.
I am not saying it doesn't exist, but I 9
haven't seen it.
j 10 The last items I have been briefed on like that was 11 by Harold Denton, who briefed me on ones that could be done, I i
12 thought, within the regulatory commission without new legislation.
13 So the largest problem I have at the present time is addressing 14 what we should be doing beyond serving as a draf ting service.
I l
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I second fully what he suggested, 16 and that is, we have gone through a long and arduous process of 17 reviewing a variety of proposals for three consecutive years.
18 The Commission submitted proposals not unlike those embodied in 19 the draf t which the Commission then sent forward to DOE as its 20 recommendation; and for the most part, were included in the i
I 21 DOE bill last year.
{
l l
22 It seems to me that those ideas were put forward for 23 those many years in good f aith and with the understanding that 24 there was some need and some benefit to be achieved from them,
.. a,s. c.i n.oormi;inc.
25 and'so it seems to me that the package we put together on l
---r
' mte' 6 7
1 September 26th represents an excellent starting point, not a 2
finished package, but nonetheless a good starting point.
There 3
are a number of c.uestions raised by Udall's paper; in particular, 4
also some thoughts Mr. Dingell suggested in his letter.
It l
e I
5 seems to me where there may be dif ferences of view, fine, 6
r iternative draf ts can be put together to represent both 7
di f ferences, and-therefore in a sense know what' is being 8
performed is a drafting service.
And that, it seems to me, is l
9 what Mr. Udall and Mr. Dingell sought in the first instance.
}
l 10 Dt is the most natural request in the world, so it seems to me j
11 that we ought to try to get on with it; and if we were in a 12 position to, however many different views on particular pieces, 13 as a matter of f act, when we got through the number of those 14 would be relatively small.
l 15 I think, of the total package we put together, the l
l 16 areas in which there would be significantly different views 17 would not ba all that many.
And in those, I think it would be i
18 even useful for us as a body to have the opportunity to discuss,
I l
19 and debate among ourselves about them more acutely.
l l
l 20 We would be sharpening both our' own thinking about l
l 21 them and perhaps, if not reconciling, more clearly describing 1
22 the nature of the differences that would arise, and that would 23 be useful as well both for ourselves and for the Committees.
l l
l 24 I think it would be useful to get on with it and see how it mA _ e s n. porters, ine.
25
- goes, I
4 1
rto 7 8
1 Moreover, I would suggest that we ought to set a 2
comparatively _early deadline on it in hopes of getting sonething 3
before those Committees early in January, in the hopes that it 4
would be of assistance to them in whatever scheduling problems l
5 they have to face in organizing a new Congress and then begin 6
an arduous hearing schedule.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Vic, do you have a comment?
I had e
a note from you soon af ter the Dingell letter arrived that said, 9
why don't we get on with it.
10 i COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I strongly support that I
11 notion.
12 CHAIRMAN EENDRIE:
There is a subsecuent letter from 13 Mr.. Udall and the draft resolution.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That doesn't leave me very 15 much elbow room.
I think that we ought to go forward.
I think 16 that John's characterization of the importance of legislative l
17 changes, as opposed to internal changes that we could undertake 18 ourselves!.in terms of the improvement of the licensing process, l
19 was about right.
I think that the major improvements that can 20 be made fall in an area that we can act on without legislative 21 changes.
l 22 But nevertheless, there are a number of steps that 1
23 can be taken that would usefully add to the -- to our legislative I
24 portfolio and would at least somewhat improve the process l
' AA. 9. at Reporters, Inc.
25 immediately, and so would offer potential for future improvement, i
- mtic' 8 9
1 and I think they are worth undertaking.
And if there is a 2
receptiveness on the part of Congress for such changes, I think' 3
it is worth going forward.and. setting a proposal before the 9
i 4
Congress on it.
5 CHAIRMAN HEMDRIE:
Peter?
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are bhose. changes that were 1
7 in the ' licensing -changes, ' these. other steps?
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Some are in the package we t
9 submitted originally, and there are probably some ideas --
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Going.through the two letters 11 in terms of that.which we can and should do, it seems to me 12 the Udall letter is fairly straightforward.
It contains a list 13 of issues and asks for our comment, our assessment overall of 14 the legislation, and asks what the impact would.be.
That I 15 think we can clearly provide and are ' under a duty to provide.
16 Congressman Dingell's letter asks for some specifics 17 on early siting and intervenor funding.
There again, I assume 18 we can respond.
I would be inclined to write, first of all, to,
t 19 do the things we can and should do, but then, beyond that, to 20 write to Congressman Dingell and indicate that we have, we l
21 are at a point now where we are a somewhat different Commission 22 then we were a year ago.
Some of us have been here a year 23 longer and some of us are new, and we have undertaken several l
24 views of the licensing process.
ot. _ 4.s! Repctwrs, inc.
25 I have in mind the immediate effect of the rule reviewj i
l r.---
4
.. -, +.....,.,,,, ~.,,,..,.,.. _,,
.m,.-
...s.,.. -
l mte'9' 10 l
1 and the review also of the role of the appeals board, and we i
i 2
are somewhat short of completion of those, and we would be in 3
a much better position if what they are waiting for is to know 4
what the NRC feels it needs for legislative changes, as distin-i 5
guished from things it can do for itself to ameliorate that 6
part of the process, we will be in a much better position to 7
respond in a few months than we are between now and the 1st of 8
January.
9 If he really wants to know what sort of a bill we 10 would have on his desk come January 1, then I think we have 11 clearly got to provide him with one.
But that's an exercise I 12 would rather put off for a while if it's acceptable to the 13 Committee.
14 MR. KELLEY:
Just off the top of my head, but I think 15 you could abolish the Appeals Board out of the proposal and i
16 not affect the legislation.
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think in the process of 18 looking at those questions, I would, if we are going to send 19 something up to the Congress labeled NRC's ideas of what the 20 legislative reforms of the nuclear licensing process should i
21 look like, and if I can choose when I can send it, I'd rather 22 send it at the end of the review, when we know whether we have i
23 on us something that recuires legislation.
j 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But isn't one of the problems,
,..i Geooreers. inc.
25 we have looked at the licensing bill, which wraps up all the l
I
l t o '1 0 '
11 1
important changes that one needs to make in the procesa?
- Now, j
4 I
2 there are some changes -- for example, expanding the class of l
3-applicants for the site -- which wouldn't be af fected by any 4
of these studies.
And it seems to me that it would be useful e-1 5
to make modest changes as one goes along.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, I am agreeing as to that.
7 First, the list of issues -- and it is a fairly extensive one --
8 that Udall and Dingell has sent out, and also, since Dingell.
9 has specifically raised early siting and intervenor funding, i
10 we owe him the best thing we can give him on those two subj ects.
11 If I can avoid it, I would rather not go the next step he asked 12 for, which is to pull together the full NRC comprehensive i
l 13 licensing reform bill between now and the 1st of the year.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it wor 1.d be wrong to 15 set aside the things we have to study.
I think one of the 16 problems with the bill originally was that it was so sweeping 17 in scope and claims.
The bill as originally described, if it I
i 18 had only attempted to effect some modest compromises tha:
I 19 everybody could agree on, it probably could have gone forward I
l 20 without all the trouble it's run into.
l 1
i 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Are those modest things that 22 you feel, would they make significant improvements?
{
l 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Probably they would not work l
24 major changes on the system.
In fact, unlikely -- they would l
m.
ni neocrmi. inc.
25 be unlikhly to.
But to the extent there is a receptiveness to l
I t
nto 11' 12 1
carry them out, it seems useful to move forward with even 2
modest improvements.
i 3
COMMISSIONER KEMNEDY:
-The history of the Republic l
4 suggests that the most effective legislation has been precisely ;
I 5
of that kind.
I 6
COMMISSIONER C-ILINSKY:
But I don't think there is
-7 going to be any grand, sweeping reform that is somehow going 8
to magically straighten out the who'le process.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I can only see that sort of 10 situation if the points of view of one whole group of the 11 spectrum of the people that we deal with in regulation are sort 12 of ignored or overrun.
If everybody is going to have due 13 process, I!.think I agree with you, it is going to be very hard 14 te do some sort of restructuring which preserves to all the 15 parties the prerogatives and due process they feel is appropriate I
16 to them, which they have had in the past, and still manage to l
17 make the whole thing run in weeks instead of months.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Are these improvements, Vic,
i 19 ones that can be explained or given analytical support, or are j
20 they more philosophical support?
I 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, let 's take two :
- One, 22 expanding the class of applicants for early site permits.
It 23 seems to be a reasonable step to allow states to come in and 24 get such permits, ao ral Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you know any states that l
l
-,n
mta 12' 13 I
want to?
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Whether in fact that will 3
happen is an open question.
On the other hand, it is a useful l
i
'4 opening -and it doesn't seem to do any harm.
l 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That is sort of the number two 6
type item in my category.
It might be nice, but you don't know 7
of - any list of states standing, knocking at the door trying 8
to --
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No.
I 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
On the other hand, it is to be Il recalled that, to a considerable extent, the states were 12 enthusiastic about a number of proposals that were put forward 13 in the past.
Now, for whatever reasons, that is the way they 14 felt, and it seems to me it behooves us to recall that unless
-15 we choose to ignore the views of the states and say that our 16 own wisdom is greater than theirs, which I must have to say I 17 doubt.
I have seen no evidence of it, at least.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, let me add something to i
19 your side of the scale.
In f act, the states can come in and i
20 get a site reviewed by the staff.
They just can't go through 21 the hearing process and get the certificate.
On the other hand, l 22 to allow them to do that seems a reasonable step.
It may be, i
23 in fact, that none of this makes a lot of difference for some l
l years if you believe the number of reactor applicants you'll I
24 ai n.pon m.inc.
25 be likely. to have, and it looks to me as if it will be pretty l
I mte' 13
- 14 1
small.
l i
2 So all the steps that seem to smooth the way for 3
dealing with larger numbers may be irrelevant for the time 4
being.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean one ought not to l
5 make improvements that don 't seem to have costs associated with 6
them and seem to be in the right direction.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Moreover, we try to avoid 8
indulging in self-fulfilling prophecies.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Those are the best kind.
10 !
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That Hepends on who is the 11 prophet.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I must say, I am inclined on balance 13 to try to wor,k ahead with the legislation with a proposed piece 14 of legislation, starting either from last year's draft or from 15 the submission.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me take the other iter, 17 which is combined permits.
If the CP and OL, if the application I
18 is sufficiently complete -- actually, I don't like that
}
19 terminology, but the notion of giving a broader kind of comple-l l
20-tion 6r essentially total completion or seeing that the plant 21 has been built according to specifications is a reasonable.one, 22 in that it tends to put a premium on having the design in hand 23 when you start building.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So your argument on that one m-sal Reporters, Inc.
25 would be that the real advantage would be to try to make sure I
mto,14 15
~
I 1
the' design is primarily in hand when vou award that first 2
permit.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
l 4
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is it such that we are largely '
)
5 precluded from --
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No, I think in large part you 7
can do that.
There is no cuestion about that.
But I think, 8
again, it is a modest step in the right direction, and it adds 9
to the incentives for moving in the direction of having a more i
10 complete design before you get going and spending a lot of II money in pouring concrete.
But you can do probably most of I2 that under current legislative authority.
I mean, I think the 13 problem with the bill is not, at leart with parts of it, is Id not that they are intrinsically bad or good; it is the exag-geratedclaimsforhavingtheincrementalclaimsforhavingthel 15 i
16 bill.
I7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Claims which I think all of us I
at least think were grossly overstated.
18 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Peter, I might comment with regard.
to the studies, Iexpectthrashingoutwhatwewouldbelieveto!
20 I
21 be reasonable language, in view of our proper level of knowledge 22 and so.on, is likely to take long enough so I would guess you 23 are well along towards your conclusions on our studies.
I am 24 not sure how close to January 1st we would have, we would come
.n.
.c r;.ociet inc, l
25 out.in any event.
Maybe, but as I recall -- well, it seems to I
1
-.a e
~,
'mt6 15 16 c
f 1
me we put in a fair amount of time last August, September, to 1
2 get to the point we reached there, and.that was in terms of 3
language that you know we recognized we were going to be
-l 4
recommending to the Administration, and in turn would see again.
5 So there was a sense there that you weren't sort of signing off l
6 for all time on phrases, but would have a chance to see it 7
again.
8 So I just have a sense that it may be a fairly lengthy 9
and time-consum'ing process.
It seems to me that it might be i
10 useful to go forward with it as the studies go along.
If they 11 begin to look as though they indicate that something ought to 12 be done in the form of a statute,- you could include it af ter 1
13 we have sent a bill up, if it came to that.
So I am -- I think 14 I understand the nature of your comment, that you would kind of l
15 like to see how these studies come out before you go.too far i
16 forward with the legislation.
But I would be surprised if what, 17 in a practical sense, it wouldn't come out that way anyway.
l 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is certainly possible, l
3 i
^
19 and the more it is worked out that way the less my concern l
l 20 would be.
l l
21 You were mentioning the experience of last year; not i
22 to suggest the time we put in on those provisions that we have 23 now reached sort of a definitive point, but just that these 24 things take time.
'to
,:st Recerters, Inc, 25 CEA RMAM HENDRIE:
It seems to me that I remember a l
I 17 mte 16 I
lot of long meetings in order to get to the place that we got, 2
and as I say, the place we got, we weren't doing it cuite in the 3
sense that, here'are the golden words and we are prepared to f
4 support these in all forms.
They were drafted to be supplied j
5 and to be seen again.
6 I only cite this in the sense that I think the effort 7
is likely to be a time-consuming one.
I think inevitably we 8
will have a lot to say about all parts of it, and it just takes 9
time to thrash things out.
You will remember the struggles I j
10 use to have to try to search for a Commission majority.
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
This will be somewhat dif ferent.
12 That effort was shaped very largely by the draf t bills that had 13 come over.
We were essentially working our way through those, 14 and the time that went into them went into analyzing the measures i
15 and implications of the measures already on the table.
The l
16 Dingell letter calls, I think, for a somewhat different ginning 17 up of our own proposals, and I assume he would like it to be as 18 definitive as possible in terms of everything we can think of.
I 19 I would feel in a better position to do that later on.
As you 20 say, the effort may still be going on and on; not much will l
1 21 be lost.
l 22 If I had my druthers, I would take it in two steps.
23 I would undertake to answer the specific questions as soon as 24 possible and undertake to prepare the bill as a second effort.
ti-
. at Repe t ters, Inc.
25 Certainly it is the Commission's preference to proceed the other l
n
~
-~v
' m'to'17 18 I
way, and I will participate in that as well.
2 CHAIRMAM HENDRIE:
I wouldn't be surprised if we sort 3
of come out that way naturally in the secuence of events.
i 4
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
To some extent, there is an I
5 overlap anyway.
The Udall/ Bingham resolution addresses both the!
6 immediate effect of the rule and the reformation --
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I reiterate, I think we have 8
an obligation to the oversight Committee to provide them with 9
our best draf ting effort early on, in order that-they can have 10 something if they intend to put it to use for their staf f use 11 and hearing purposes, so they know where they stand and are 12 able to schedule their hearing efforts, if in fact it is a 13 serious legislative effort, which I believe it to be.
The 14 opening of a nek Congress is always its most d.ifficult time.
15 Its closing is also, but its opening is also a difficult time, 16 because it does have a considerable organisational effort to 17 go through, and then the scheduling effort comes next; and the l
18 sooner the Committee can know that they have something with j
l 19 which to work,- the better postune they are to do that scheduling' 20 job.
And it seems to me we have time.
It is, after all, only l
t 21 the first week of November.
We have two months, and it seems 22 to me to draf t out an outstanding draf t on almost any-subject.
l 23 I am sure the Commission, by virtue of its considera-l 24 ble talent and staf f, is more than up to the task.
So I suggest:
M s et Reporters, Inc, 25 the-sooner we can get them to it, the better, rather than
(
.~ --.
19 i
r mte.18'
-debate.them.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You are speaking for your. side of-2 the table.
I am not'too sure that you'are speaking.for these 3
{
over here.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :
I got the impression that was S
what. Victor said in his. earl).er ' memo, in which I' vigorously 6
concurred.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know, it is.about time 8
the conversation ran back to the end of your: table, John.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I agree with Dick and Peter 10 11 that we ought to rapidly respond to the reauest, or what.I would' characterize as. a draf ting service, that part of it ought; i
12 to be a - rapid response, no doubt about it.
As far as-then 13 14 going beyond what we as a Commission believe to be all the
~
-15 necessary and appropriate things to be in that piece of legisla-16 tion, as I said, I still have a difficult time understanding 37 what is really needed.
And I guess if the four of you have already reached essentially agreement on your previous dra.f t, i
18 i
19 the best. thing for me to do would be to ask. whether that is a secondary question..
20 I am not sure whether it's an OGC or I:LD which is i-21 the principal drafter, but to ask whichever one it is'to run.
22 down the pieces.-and -- not this afternoon -- and as'k where 23 24 those are going to be of benefit in there.
And I guess I could,
j 5
,;al Etoctters, Inc.
25
-support those kinds of. pieces which have that kind of support..
I 1
i
~ -...
..-1
,,,-.._.,...,~,-4~,...
.. -,.. _ -. -......,.... _ -... - ~ - -. _ _. _,... - ~ _,. - =. - - -,. - ~ -. ~ - - _ ~
20 s.
.mt's 19 l
1 CHAIRMAN'HENDRIE:
Let.me recommend to you some courses 2
of action, and see if you can muster up support.
3 First, with regard to the items Mr. Udall has asked 4
us for comments, and welcomes individual Commissioners' comments l 5
as well, on the several items in the draf t resolution that he 6
and Mr. Bingham got up toward the end of the last session here.
7 Why don't we -- my recommendation is that we ask one or another 8
of our legal officers to draf t some material and a reply which 9
we can consider, and whichever one it is ought to consult with i
10 the other as well, with the staff offices, concerning these 11 matters.
And I think there is a fair chance that we will want 12 to meet and discuss some of these items.
But it is helpfulto 13 have some draft material to whittle on.
And I an open to sug-14 gestions as to whether Jim's office ought to take the lead or 15 Howard's.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Before you get to that, would 17 you also -- Mr. Dingell, in an earlier letter, had asked speci-l 18 fically to address two aspects -- would you also include that?
l l
19 CHAIRFRN HENDRIE:
Are they in the list?
I believe 20 they are both in the Udall/ Bingham list, and I want to come in 21 a minute to what to do about their eaue st.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess I am only drawing the 23 point that--
24 COMMISSIONER KFNNEDY:
Mr. Dingell said he wanted n
t:et Espotters, Inc, 25 those things included in the bill, including thosepoints, and l
I
21 i
hte 20'
?
I would, it seems to me, that if we would proceed with the bill, 2
then we can also produce with it an analytical piece which says 3
A and B think these are great ideas, C and D don't care, and E i
4 thinks they are not too great.
That is somewhat different in 8-2 5
approach from the Udall recuest.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNF:
Udall is asking for a list of 7
views.
It is a different character.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Just so.
9 COMMISSIONER AHFARNE:
Dingell has said, you people are i
10 the experts on something, I want a bill to be drafted.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I agree with that.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, the hearing record would 13 show, when he repeatedly asked who drafted the bill and we said, 14 well, I don't know, some guy like Ahearne, and he says, well, l
15 who is he, great fellow, but by God, why is he writing this, j
i 16 why aren't you?
And we said, that was a very good guestion.
17 And so now he says, since you thought it was the right thing to i
18 do in the first place, why not get at it.
A reasonable posture i
19 for Mr. Dingell, it would seem.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'm sorry.
I'm very sorry.
l 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE :
Trying to deal with Mr. Dingell's 22 request for a bill as contrasted with these items, would you
~
l 23 include site reviews and intervenor funding?
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
He was really asking to include!
e at Repoe mts, Inc.
25 the request to whichever office is doing it, to also draf t a I'
i
,mho'21 22 I
bill.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But not at the moment.
I'm going 3
to talk about that in a moment.
4 I am just trying to say we ought to move ahead and l
5 do this, not that there was much question on this.
I guess we 6
were all in agreement.
I guess I seek comments on whether you'd f
7 like to see the lead placed one place or another, 8
COMMISSIONER. KENNEDY:
What is it that we are going 9
to do?
i 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Item A, we are going to answer 11 Mr. Udall's letter, as you would expect we would.
l 12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And Item B?
i 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If I can get people to nod on that l
14 one, I am going to say --
j f
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I'm not going to nod on that 16 until I know we are going to do the same thing for Mr. Dingell.
i 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I have the same problem.
l l
i 18 Addressing these two letters, one has said, here is a list of i
19 items, would the Commissioners provide their views; and the i!
I 20 other has said, I want a bill.
l 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And I think those two things 23 can and should be done at the same time.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would prefer to go to the
. ot.
a al Repor ters, Inc, 25
. general counsel's office.
i
mth 22 23 1
COMMISSIONER SHAPAR:
I would second that.
2 COMMISSIONER' KENNEDY:
Given Howard's immediate
.1 I
3 response, I am immediately chary of it.
My own suggestion would' I
i 4
be :that -there is enough work to go around, and I think the l-i 5
considerable talents which reside in the ELD can certainly 6
support those of the OGC, ~ and together they can' produce the
~
7 high-cuality product we :have come to know and respect.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
They can certainly do it individually.;
9 Whether they can do it collectively is another matter.
^
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Given their high regard for' 11 one another --
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
With all those fine words, they 13 should work together.
But since one of them has to take the 14 lead, I will support Victor and go along with the motion to 15 send it to the general counsel.
l i
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No, no, I don't go along with 17 Howard's notion.
l 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Because Joe had already said --l 19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let's reiterate that, that it l
i-20 is an exercise that they work in tandem.
l 1
l 21 MR. KELLEY:
I think it is very important.
This is l
22 a difficult job.
It should be.put -- a primary responsibility 23 should be given to one or the other office.
I think it is not-l 24 a good idea. for us to get tangled up on this.
The assignment
. u.
,..i n.pei :ers, inc.
25 of the responsibility in the area was fuzzy in the last Congress l l
t 1
1,_,,..-.y m,.
.,,-,~.<m.s~.m.
...... ~,,. _.........,.. _ _,........, _,........,,,. ~.,
s.-..
~.;
',mha ' 2 3 24 1
and created internal problems that I would like to avoid.
l i
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I was unaware of all these l
3 internal problems.
I am delighted to hear about them.
I am i
4 sure,you must have solved them magnificently or they would have 5
come to our attention earlier.
6 COMMISSIONEP AHEARNE:
Vic and I would go with 7
general counsel.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADLEY:
It's fine with me.
9 CHAIRNaN HENDRIE:
You know --
10 MR. KELLEY :
There obviously has to be -- the office 11 with the lead has to submit their product for the comments of 12 the other office that has knowledge we haven't got.
But I think 13 it is just important that the primary lead be* put in one.of fice 14 or the other.
15 MR. SHAPAR:
To the extent they wish cooperation from 16 us, we will be glad to provide it.
Beyond that, to the extent 17 I disagree with any directions, I will let the Commission know j
18 directly.
i 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And don't omit the staff offices 20 involved in carrying out the nuts and bolts of these things as l
21 Well.
l I
22 Now, since I have got some contingent votes, I can't 23 split this up i.. a small part.
So let me say Part A of my l
24 proposal is, by all means, let's answer Mr. Udall's letter four '
m ei nmee em, Inc.
25 square as he asked the questions.
Now, with regard to l
Smta 24l-25 1
Mr. Dingell's recuest that we draf t a bill, I recognize 'the 2
draf ting service aspects that you would be happier with John.
r 3
COMMISSIONER AHEARNF:
That is not'necessary, not i
4 necessarily sufficient.
In other words, what I am saying is t
5 that, at an absolute minimum, we must provide a drafting serviceu 6
CHAIRNAN HENDRIE:
And I think your preference would 7
be, at least for the moment, to restrain it to that, and I 8
recognize that Peter v',1d prefer to go slow.
But in spite of i
9 recognizing those. points of view, I think my own feeling is j
i 10 that we should go ahead and begin to move toward draf ting a 11 bill which we would expect:in due time the' Commission would 12 present to the Congress and stand up and at least a majority of 13 us would be there na defend every provicion.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE :
I have no problem with that.
15 COMMISSIONFR GILINSKY:
Obviously, I have an int.ceri 16 in some of the matters we have: asked the general counsel er 17 othe 3 to study, and we would be delighted if that could 18 be done, would be incorporhted as a grand proposal.
But I 19 we can move forward now.
I 20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We can also submit supplements l 1
21 to this proposal and through the hearing. process.
They are not 22 going to decida s11 the matters on the 1st of March after a l
23 review on the 20th of February.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If anything passes, it will be w
oe n oce me,inc.
25 late in the session and the' studies will be long in their hand l
l i
ht'e 25 26 I
before then, and we can make adjustments.
j l
2 Okay, it seems to me that we are sufficiently coalesced i
3 so I can declare that is the sense of the Commission.
Let us, 4
in view of my eauivocal interim reply to Mr. Dingell -- I think l 5
th,e general counsel's office could usefully draft an answer 6
saying, yes, we have had a useful discussion and Vo will be 7
moving ahead as you recommend, and somebody ought to answer.
8 I assume there is -- there can be simply a very brief acknow-9 ledgment and answer.
In effect, all we need to say to Mr. Udall j 10 is:
Thank you very much for your letter.
We have got a copy 11 of the draf t resolution in hand.
Thank you very much.
I see 12 no need to labor that.
13 And the longer-range efforts then are moving ahead, 14 both the draf t resolution items and on the bill matters, tha t 15 is going to take some more time, working back and forth, i
16 Let me ask you, ask the Commission a question.
One I
17 of the ways to move, and again, to get some things to work on 18 in terms of the draf ting exercise is to see if we can decide i
19 where a good starting point is.
Would you regard the paper of a' 20 year ago where you would like to s cart?
l 21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think it 's an excellent l
\\
22 beginning.
l l
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or the proposed bill as a place to l
24 start?
I guess in either case, what you do is take the preferred w
.i nexe rm. ine.
25 Lone and cross-compare it and take notice of the different l
i
m.
.mto.26
.27-
}
l
. differences,Lboth with-regard to the language in which - the j
2 same provisions are drafted'.
-l 3
MR. SHAPAR:
There are about 11 major differences'.
g i
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
By the paper of a year ago,
l 1
-5 do you meant- -
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIF: ~ The one I distributed'.
7 COMMISSIONER-AHEARNE:
And that was something before 8
'our time.
It would seem to me that, since the four of you were
[
9 in some sense in agreement on that, that would be as good.a 10 starting place as any.
I guess I will' turn to OGC for that 11 list of substantive reasons why each of'those provisions are 12 going to be an improvement.
13 MR. STOIBER:
Perhaps one approach that might be,
14 useful is that Congressman Udall anticipated in August what he-15 called a markup of his legislation.
Perhaps an initially usefu1l 16 start would be an issue markup paper going down the issues that l
17 have been suggested in the Udall letter, in the past bill that l
l 18 the Commission reviewed and other issues which may arise from l
i 19 whatever source indicating the things that Commissi,oner Ahearne 20 had indicated,.whether or not we feel a definite legal need for !
1 21 these.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARMS:
I need more than a feel.
I I
23
- recognize it was in this cause-that someone felt it was useful.
i 24.
It'could even be substantive.
It doesn't have to be legal.
+
.w.
< ei neperms. ine; 25 MR '. STOIBER:
We have legislative language that has
+
,+v
, Gl'
f
-
- m te 2 7 28 W
1 been developed in prior bills, or we can attach that as something j
2 discussed,'but to regard it, the first paper, as an issue paper 3
that will be discussed and perhaps. additional drafting done on i
4 specific statutory language whether the Commission had decided l
5 whether that particular item should be included or not.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
John, two thoughts about that 7
draft.
One is that it is certainly as good a starting. point as 8
we have got, but it has to be kept in mind that it was shaped 9
in reference to DOE drafts, so its agenda was predetermined, j
i 10 and'I don't remember that there was much outside the framework 11 to consider questions likely the immediately effectiveness rule 12 for the structure of the appellate process.
I don 't remember 13 that they focused on that kind of thing at all.
i 14 The other is a letter to McIntyre of OMB that came 15 about two weeks later, af ter we got the next Ad. ministration 16 draft back, which took into account some but not all our changes 17 and set forth the justification for some of the changes that l
felt they ought to think again about incorporating.
You
{
18 wa 19 ought to have a look at that as well.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The paper of a year ago, because 21 it is at least within the bounds that Peter sketched as a 22 Commission product, is a perfectly reasonable starting point.
23 But I would also note that it is a year-plus old and all of our 24 attention for sometimes for extended periods of time was m.
.. neocem, w.
- 25 focused on later vers 4.ons-of the bill, the Administration bill I
suwr+e-v v
s-_-es-3 m
y 3--g-,
.g
-er r,
,e--em y
-i c -
,a++v m
.-q.
to SB 29 I
as. finally. developed in the course of testimony.
So I'm not 2
sure that d. we sat down to redraft right now, we necessarily l
3 would come out right where this ' is.
It may be, maybe not.
But I 4
there has been a lot of testifying under the bridge since we 5
finished that.
I can see no obvious harm and some possible 6
merit in the issue paper.
7 How does it strike you?
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Fine.
i 9
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
After all, if it gets produced and !
i 10 turns out not to be helpful to the discussion, why, we'll 11 simply flip it off' and drop it in the wastepaper basket and get 12 on with some line of attack that is more helpful.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Before we go, I'd like to make 14 one suggestion.
Following the comment of Commissioner Ahearne's, 15 I agree it ought to be substantive.
But if you could at the 16 same time try to keep it legal, it would be good.
17 CHAIRF%N HFNDRIE:
Okay, the people think they under-l 18 stand where to go from here.
Don't forget my two letters.
19 Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjcurned.
j l
e-3 20 (Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.) ;
I 21
{
22 l
23 "24
.m.
...i nepe r im, inc.
25 l
.