ML20148T537
| ML20148T537 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/11/1977 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148T534 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7812050331 | |
| Download: ML20148T537 (77) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
r
- i ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 A
5 COMMISSION MEETING 6
7 IN THE MATTER OF:
8 Licensing Reform 9
10 11 12 13 14 PLACE: 1717 H Street, N.W.
15 Washington, D. C.
I 17 DATE: August 11, 1977 -
18 19 Pages: 1 to 77 20 21 22 NOTE: The initials appearing in the 23 lefthand margin indicating corrections i.e. J.B., are those of Jake Brown, Office of the Secretary.
2A Aes. Federal Reporters, Inc.
{!.twv ,lh / Of Ml77 A L L./R p sJn su n. cw w.et na. 4*)
INasNngtsa, D., C. 20001 77/zosb331
2 ;
tR4511 bwl
(; 1 Members of the Commission present were P
2 CHAIRMAN JOSEPH M. HENgRIE 3 COMMISSIONER VICTOR GILINSKY 4 COMMISSIONER RICHARD T. KENNEDY 5 Also present was 6 Secretary Samuel J. Chilk 7
8 Participants were 9 Howard Shapar 10 Lee Gossick
[ II James Kel e
3 12 Kenneth Pederspn 13 Robert Ryan I4 William Dircks 15 A. Ros enthal 16 James Yore ,
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2A
&ce.F@rel Reporters, Inc.
25 l
b l 1
l L
3 4 . .
CR4511 PROCEEDINGS Tape 1 -----------
bwl 7 CHAIRMAN HEt RIE: Why don't we kick off and go.
1 3 First of all, I want to say -- to warn you that I'm l
{
l 4 trying to reach Peter Bradford, and if I can get through to him, !
5 why Sue will nudge me, and I'm just going to get up and go, no 6 matter who's talking, including me, because I' ve got to figure l
7 out what his plans are.
8 Bi11?
9 MR. DIRCKS: Sir? He's at Aspen, Colorado at the 10 present.
D
' 3 11 CHAIRMAN HEN)2fRIE: He's at Aspen, Colorado.
12 (Laughter.)
[2 13 CHAIRMAN HENgRIE: Sue's calling Aspen at the moment.
14 Well, I think his intent was to come down Monday.
15 Are you both going to be around, in which case, since we haven't 16 had much luck in encouraging other people to swear him in, and 37 so on, why I think we ought to get the job done here. And I 18 don't know whether I could do any better with the oath if I Do n os h ac.
read it, rather than trying to follow 4,Dvuuhue.
(4 20 gk .5#NA/U fl The first Commissioner who ever muf fed his 21 lines.
D Ch22 CHAIRMAN HEN,dRIE: I was fine in everything except 23 the mental reservation part, that seemed to, you know, set some 24 sort of switching gear transient going there. But then I'll Ace-Fedirst Reporters, Inc.
25 try to come down maybe Monday morning, and maybe we could gather I
bv2 4 I and get him duly constituted, and so on, Monday afternoon.
2 Okay. That's why I'm trying to reach him, to see if 3 that's okay with him.
4 Okay. Now the other thing is about this meeting.
I 5 We've had a communication -- several of us have had individual 6 communications from the Office of the President saying, "Here's 7 some draft legislation on licensing reform." It obviously has 8 a high content and impact for NRC, because it deals with our 9 main line of business. It's been sent along, and they've said, 10 would you make a comment -- my letter said August 10, which I'm 11 afraid is a little overdue, but never mind.
12 I think that was just by way of urging us to make an 13 early comment.
14 However, it's ny understanding that this early comment 15 is in the following context, that they would like to go out for 16 public -- and make this draf t public and see what sort of re-17 sponse they get and are looking here for -- not for a considered 18 set of Commission positions and recommendations for changes , but 19 rather some initial fast reactions on the legislation, on the 20 proposal, as they get ready to go public with it.
21 It has seemed to me then useful to discuss some of 22 the elements of this and have it outlined briefly for us and 23 then discuss a little bit some of the elements of this and begin, i
1 24 to ' set some of the directions that we may want to take on this j l AmFuterd Rnoners, inc. l 25 legislation.
bw3 5 l
I I regard the meeting then as a sort of a free-running 2 discussion and round table sort of thing. It's not at all in a
' 3 sense that we ' re attempting to, you know, close upon firm and 4
- carefully considerd positions, but rather a round of expressions 5
and opihions.
6 These will be helpful to"me and the other 7
Commissioners in perceiving where we ought to go in the days 8
ahead on this legislative matter.
9 It does clearly have a high interest in the 10 Administration as part of the President's program on energy 11 supplies.
12 And, so, with that introduction, I believe we --
I3 MR. GOSSICK: We sent a paper ~ down to you that --
[ I# CHAIRMAN HEN IE: You sent us a paper and --
15 MR.GOSSICK: - . add the bill, and I can ask Howard to stmmari e i
6 it briefly, if you like.
' 17 O CHAIRMAN HEN)3RIE: As Howard got started during I0 the paper, Howard, please do a summary.
19 MR. SHAPAR: Mr. Chairman --
0 D
CHAIRMAN HENfRIE: By the way, how widely is this 21 available amongst the participants in the meeting? Anybody 22 that didn' t get it, that should have, maybe we can get some 23 copies back --
MR. SHAPAR: I think there are three main elements in i
~ Ace Fedstal Reporters, Inc.
S the bill.
i ,
l ,
i >
bw4 I
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I assume this is subject to the FOIA; right?
MR. SHAPAR: Subject to the FOIA? I guess --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Just looking to next week, is an.
5 MR. SHAPAR: I guess it represents intragovernmental 6
correspondence, rot facha, but die deliberative process , I think 7
we --
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I'm talking about your summary, 9
MR. SHAPAR: I think the same thing, deliberative 10 process, intragovernmental correspondence.
I 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Predecisions. l 12 VOICE: Predecisions.
t 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I thought it was a legal brief.I 14 !
MR. SHAPAR: It's perfectly imfactual (?) and I 15 dispassionate, as you know perfectly well.
i 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: There fore , it's not a legal brief.
17 MR. SHAPAR: I think we could protect it under the 18 FOIA, if we wanted to.
Qg 19 O
_r i
CHAIRMAN HEyORIE: I don' t know whether we could 20 keep it in there in the -- They're getting ready to go public 21 with this thing, what kind of secrets could there be in --
22 l
VOICE: We'll probably know next week what they're ;
i
' 3 going to do. s 24 !
w renei nemnus, ine. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Just looking ahead. I'
' ?> 25 D '
(
s CHAIRMAN HEN,0RIE: Well, I'm going to get out of I
I
, 7 )
bw5 1 town this afternoon and -- l l
j 2 (Laughter.)
3 00f44ISSIOWER KENNEDY: Maybe sonething will happen by then..
4 an FOIA manager will soon learn to --
O D75 CHAIRMAN HEN,6RIE: Oh, that doesn't help.
6 (Laughter.)
7 MR. SHAPAR: Okay, I would say there are three 8 main strands of relevance to this legislation.
9 The first third is essentially the old NRC bill, i
10 versions of which have surfaced for the last four years, three 11 cr four years. And that contains such changes -
P
( jp2 CHAIRMAN HEN,$'RIE : This is the great historic 13 document, that derived from even the days of my earlier I
I 14 occupation.
i 15 MR. SHAPAR: That you and I wrote singlehandedly, I 16 think, about three years ago. ;
}
17 It contains such things as abolishing the mandatory 18 hearing at the construction permit stage, when no one asks for 19 a hearing, not requiring ACRS review, unless the ACRS vants to 20 review, or the Commission wants the ACRS to review the matter.
21 The same changes that we've been talking about for three or 22 four years and was essentially in the NRC bill about a year and 23 a half or two years ago, sent over by the NRC.
24 One major change, though, among others that I lAco Federet Reporters inc.
l 25 describe in the paper. I can get into as much detail as you l
bw6
- 8 ,
1 1 like. I'm trying'to hit the high spots now. I c D k2 CHAIRMAN HEN,0RIE: Yes.
3 MR. SHAPAR: The main chance is that the NRC bill, a for the most part, would have required adjudicatory or trial-S type hearings on all aspects of the hearing process, with one i 6 exception, and that was the case of a construction permit hearing, 7 when you married a preapproved design with a preapproved site.
8 In that case, no adjudicatory hearing was required in the NRC 9 bill, unless one was necessary for a full and true disclosure 10 of the facts.
11 So, even in the NRC bill itself, there was some 12 relaxation of the trial-type hearing, but in much more limited 13 circumstances than in this bill.
14 Now, what this bill would --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
15 The previous bill -- correct ll 16 me -- had such hearings for the two preliminary phases --
17 MR, SHAPAR: Yes.
4 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: -- in other -ds, for those 19 preapproved.
20 MR. SHAPAR: Yes. That's correct. It would require 21 it --
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And you marry those, you 23 had a more relaxed kind of procedure.
24 MR. SHAPAR: That's correct. It would, as I indicated, AmFWsret Remnets. Inc. f 25 it would have required an adjudicatory-type hearing on all
.bw7 9 i .
3 l
I aspects of the hearing process, with the one exception I ;
2 mentioned, marrying a preapproved design with a preapproved site.
3 This bill would -- still required adjudicatory-type 4
hearing for the present system, esse tially. But it would not 5
require an adjudicatory-type hearing for the new system. By that 6 I mean, for the approval of a design, standard design, the 7
approval of a site, preapproved site , and for the marriage of 8 Nor would it require an adjudicatory-type hearing for the two.
9 approval of a design by a manufacturing license.
10 What it would provide for in those circumstances I 11 just outlined, rather than a trial-type hearing, would be an 12 informal or legislative-type hearing with one change f rom the I3 usual legislative-type hearing. l 14 It would require that participants to the hearing l j
15 be given the opportunity to submit proposed questions to the 16 hearing board, and the hearing board could use its discretion I7 on whether or not to submit those proposed question to another 18 participant.
19 So, in a sense, it sort of -- you can call it a 20 hybrid or an in between place between the traditional legislative-21 type hearing and the trial-type hearing.
22 OJtNISSIONER KENNEDY: 'Ihe hearing board would decich?
23 MR. SHAPAR: The hearing board would decide.
^
COMMISUIONER GILINSKY: But can't you always do that?
Ace.Fedital Reporters, Inc. i 25 MR. SHAPAR: Yes, but this would be engrafted into l
10 i
bw8 I the statute as a statutory requirement.
2 CI)MMISSIONER KENNEDY: But what does it do -- I'm just trying 3
to educate myself -- What does it do for anybody wishing to 4
appear before or to intercede with this licensing board to tell 5
him that if he submits questions the hearing board will decide 6
the future of the questions? It doesn't do very much for him.
7 If he thinks the questions are good questions, he's not going 8
to think any less of them, because you say you're not going to 9
refer them to somebody to be heard.
)
10 MR. SHAPAR: Of course, a lot depends on --
II CDMMISSIONER KENNEDY: And, therefore, is he not -- let 12 ne fbd.sh ny question and my thesis -- Therefore, he is not ,
- I l l 13 more likely to go to the courts and say, "The proceeding is a !
l i l Id phony proceeding? I haven' t been able to get the point out on i 15 I the table . "
i 16 Isn't he going to do that? I would.
I7 MR. SHAPAR: Okay.
I 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: And I'd hire you to do it for e.
19 (Laughter.)
l 20 And I'd succeed.
UI 6
MR. PEDERS%N : You'd win. ;
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You bet I'd win.
23 MR. SH AP AR : No, I don't think you would. Number one,l i
24 '
Ace-Fedef al Reporters. Inc.
with me as your counsel, you wouldn' t win.
25 (Simultaneous voices.) I t
l
' 11 bw9 .
t
- I I
6 MR. KELLY: I hate to say it; I think he'd lose A
2 Because it's a statute.
l 3
! VOICE: It's in the statute.
d 3 MR. KELLY: That's right, it's in the statute.
5 The statute says this is kosher, and you don' t have a con-l 6
stitutional right to litigate where a plant goes.
7 gR.PEDERSEN!
> VOIOD: There's no due process being denied.
8 MR. SHAPAR: I agree with that completely, but there ' s 9
a practical answer too.
10 If the board asked all your questions, you'd be 11 quite satis fied. So a lot would depend on how intelligent and 12 astute and industrious the boards are. And if the search is I3 for the truth and somebody asks a sensible question, I have no 14 l idea why a sensible board wouldn't ask it.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I like sensible boards. Iat ne be onl l
record on that one.
37 (Laughter.)
18 I would urge upon the commission, indeed, be careful 19 in th'e future, as a matter of policy, to be sure that all boards 20 are sensible boards, wouldn't you say?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask my question again.
22 ~
Can't you, right now, without that provision, suppose you have 23 a legislative-type hearing. You can always submit the board i I
I 24 Ac.4.o.re n noneri, ine, a list of questions, which you think are legitimate questions, 25 l and say, please ask these questions at your discretion. j
- _m _ m __._m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
bw10 12 1 MR. SHAPAR: The answer to your question is , yes.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And 'so how is the situation i
3 changed by writing that future --
4 MR. SHAPAR: Well, you could have written the legis-5 lation in one of two ways. You could have said a legislative- )
l 6 type hearing, in which case the board could say, "I won't allow l
7 anybody to do anything, other than to express his written ndews '.in l 1
8 advance or to read them orally at the hearing." l 9 At least the statute -- .
l 10 COMMISSIONER: GILINSKY: They have to at least l
II entertain --
12 MR. SHAPAR: You're creating an ambience, I think l
13 for writing in the statute that people have the right to propose l 14 questions. If you're saying it's a matter of discretion, it f i
15 certainly is, But you're still creating an ambience here. l 6
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I'like that word. I'll coma back to 17 it. l I
18 MR. SHAPAR: Okay. I think I started out my comments 19 by indicating there three main strands to the bill, and one of 20 the main strands was essentially the'old NRC bill, that the 21 NRC has sent over to the Congress, with one major change, which l l
22 we've just fini.shed discussing, which the back of f from the 23 adjudicatory-type proceeding, even though there was some slight 1
24 back-of f even in the NRC bill on very limited circumstances. l Ace Federst Repnrters, Inc.
25 MR. PEDERSp4: Howard, why -- I' m just curious --
i l I
.m
,bw11 13
+ , .
1 c off the whole way, if we're going to back off?
Nhy didn't we ba'k 2 Why Keep it for the present system? Is that designed to be some 3 kind of an incentive to go the othcr route?
4 MR. SHAPAR: I think that's a good way of putting.
! P i
g5 l MR. PEDERS)dU : Then 'are we in a position then of usj.ng 6 hearings as kind of a carrot and stick? And is this really a 7 proper way to use hearings?
8 MR. SHAPAR: Well, I think it might be well to try 9 and get the main elements of the bill out first, and then get 10 the individual things. Because then I think you're getting into 11 tactics and strategy --
if 712 MR. PEDERSON: Let me c6me back to'that.
W /
13 MR. SHAPAR: Yes. It's a good point, though.
)p> l4 MR. PEDERS N: I think there 's a danger we' re using V
15 hearings here as a hammer or a whip or something.
16 MR. SHAPAR: Well, let me just say brie fly, I think 17 there is a legitimate public purpose in encouraging people 18 to move into the new system. If we think the new system of 19 preapproved sites and preapproved design is a good idea, then i l
20 it's a traditional legislative technique to provide either sticks i 21 or carrots.
6 MR. PEDERS,dh; ' Well, I think, as a regulatory agency, h322 i i 23 whether we use the heari Js as our vehicle to accomplish our I
24 purposes, you know, by rigging, manipulating, let me use that f aa4emi nnerim. inc. ,
I 25 word. !
1 i
I t
i
14 f
CPNISSIONER KENNEDY: As a regulatory agency, let ne be j
l 2
sure that there's no mistaking, as I understand this, and I think 3
it's important, at least for me, to understand this correctly a
at the outset of discussion.
5 As a regulatory agency, this is not any product that
, 6 I'm aware of, as except as it has been sent to me --
iMR. SHAPAR: This is an Administration proposal.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : -- By John Ahearne, a 8
representaive of the Administration. I had no part in this. I 4
9 10 know nothing about it, other than what's in here. And, you i 11 know, there fo re , it's not a carrot and stick of this agency, at f 12 least, from my perspective, at this point, as a matter of tactics.'
13 Am I correct on that?
l ja MR. SHAPAR: You are correct.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Thank you, i a
16 MR. SHAPAR: Okay, the second major strand, I would 17 call " coordination at the federal level." ,
18 This is not a new idea by any means. This concept i
19 has appeared in the bills of at least three or four 20 Adminis trations .
21 What it does, essentially, is to give another federal i
22 agency, in this case, the DOE, a coordinating role for all ;
i 23 federal agencies that have something to do with nuclear power !
1 24 plants. The most concrete illustration or facet of that Ace. Federal nerorters, Inc.
25 coordinating rule is to establish target schedule dates ,
, bwl2 15 i
1 schedule dates for completion of reviews by all federal agencies 2 who are connected with the construction or operation of the 3 plant 4 It would not be a firm date. No agency, including 5 the NRC, would be legally obligated to meet it, and just by 6 saying --
D 7 CHAIRMAN HENgRIE: Sort of like the Blue Book.
8 MR. SHAPAR: Well, the Blue Book, I might add, did 9 achieve some single results.
T C 310 COMMISSIONERGjkLINSKY: With Bill Mcdonald moving 11 across the street --
12 (Laughter.)
P 13 CHAIRMAN HErfdRIE: I assume that Mcdonald will take 14 the system over to DOE now, you know, we'll get a purple book 15 for the Agency. I'll have to go over things just like I used 16 to with Munsing, and explian why we couldn't take it on out-17 side number 3 (?).
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: To a variety of forums . !
D !
,., 19 CH AIRMAN HENC'RIE : Well, I' ve had experience , l 20 extensive experience , f 21 MR. SHAPAR: Now, I should point out -- I don't !
l 22 want to mislead anybody by indicating it, because it's not 23 legally required that anybody meet the schedule, but it won't l.
24 have certain practical effects.
4(v4mes semnus, ine. ;
25 If the spotlight is on an agency --
r
j 16 bwl4 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, that's the intent; isn't 2 that so?
3 MR. SHAPAR: Certainly, it is, to put the heat under 4 the agencies to do their job, expeditiously. And it probably 5 will have some effect on some agencies, for the agencies them- l 6 selves to determine that.
7 I think that point should be made.
8 I should also point out --
,I 9 ODM4ISSIONER KENNEDY: 03uld I sk -- What is the necessity 10 of there being a provision in the statute for that purpose?
11 When, as I understand, the statutes of the regulatory agencies, 12 particularly, our own, as I'm not going to judge the others, 13 requires me, as a Commissioner, and I think my colleagues, 14 indeed, I'm confident of my colleagues, as well, to proceed 15 in precisely that way. What is the need for an additional 16 statute to tell me I've got to do what I'm supposed to do? ,
17 And, not only that, establish some federal official, f 18 not an independent regulator to tell me that I've got to do, f 19 what I' ve got to do, what my statute tells me I'm supposed to 20 do.
21 What's the purpose of that?
22 MR. SHAPAR: Is that a rhetorical question?
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Not at all. Not at all.
24 I'm really interested, because I want to hear the answer. l l An Feer i nneners, ine. l 25 MR. SHAPAR: I guess to keep your feet to the fire, ! !
1
' 17 1
i bw15 I to givd you the most candid, straight answer I can give you.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Let me make the position clear.
3 MR. SHAPAR: You don't need --
4 I don't need anybody to hold COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
5 my feet to the fire. I'll be delighted to help anybody in that 6 connection, but I don't need my feet held to the fire.
7 MR. SHAPAR: Well, maybe they ' re thinking about the 8 more dilatdry agencies , rather than the NRC.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Hope so.
10 MR. SHAPAR: If we could find any.
fGENNEDY
% COMMISSIONERg In that case , then, why don't we I2 comment to that ef fect, as I intend to, to Mr. Ahearne. Okay?
13 MR. SHAPAR: Okay.
Id The third strand of the bill, and probably the 15 most significant, in terms of drastic change, is what I call l 16 a readjustment of federal-state responsibilities in the 17 environmental review area.
18 And what this would do, would be to say that I9 environmental review is really a state responsibility, if it's 20 done right, and it proceeds from the logic that reasonable 2I men can differ as to whether or not the states ought to be 22 doing the environmental ' review or the Federal Government ought 23 to be doing the environmental review, but it defies logic for u
24 1 both of them to be doing the same environmental review. i Aa FMetal Flemmers Inc. ,
25 I That being the case, one has to make a choice. l
bwl6 18 i
1 Should it be the Federal Government or should it be the state 2 government, if that premise is correct.
3 The thesis of this bill is to give the states the 4 first crack at the basic questions of environmental acceptability 5 and need for power.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But, you know, you said it
..asd G &.
de fies logic, that 's wha t the' +i-neud2Lle) rm ~dW.
There are matters 37 O(Y 8 which cut across state lines. We have the question of the need 9 for power, also the environmental effects in the states on 10 river --
11 MR. SHAPAR: Yes.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY : -- between the states --
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: And need for power issues 14 which cross state --
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes. So, it isn't 16 entirely obvious that -- I mean, certainly we don't want the l l
17 states and the Federal Government doing the same thing over, I jhmLl&
] 3 18 you knowgoverfinaudale.) look at it. But it isn't obvious i
19 that that really covers the entire situation. I A
C 3 20 MR. SHAP/R: True. You can say that in certain elements i I 21 of the environmental review and need-for-power process, the re ' s 22 a common interest on the part of both the Federal Government !
l 23 and the state government. But even that being so, there is an j i
2d enormous amount of duplication at the present time. With respeck ,
ae-FWircl Reprters, Inc.
l l 25 to regions in other states , this bill does have provisions !
1 1
l l
bwl7 19 j addressing that, because it provides for regions to substitute 2
for states and --
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSK : All right. But it talks about a
shifting to s ates the responsibility for environmental reviews .
5 And, if a state has an acceptable program that meets the DOE 6
guidelines and meets the dilatory taunt, i t ge ts to do the j ob .
7 MR. SHAPAR: Right .
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So it may, in fact, be 9 writing the report on matters which concern many other states.
10 MR. SHAPAR: But it does provide for regions to be 11 involved and-to substitute for the states, recognizing that there 12 may be regional impact.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, I mean, that may be -- l l
14 (Sihultaneous ~ voices . ) l l
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Does it require that?
16 MR. SHAPAR: It doesn' t require it, not It allows i
17 it. ;
I i
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Let's consider a plant, and l 19 there are several, which sit on rivers, across the line from 20 another state. 'Now, if the two don't happen to get together 21 in a regional combat and, indeed, in the past there had been 22 some dif ficulty sometimes, I think. Indeed, the governors 23 have indicated that they recognized that they have had !
l 24 difficulties in some cases in getting together on these issues. j Ace Federol Reporters, Inc.
25 What then? !
I i
)
l 1
,I ,
.bwl8 20 l
1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, presumably, one of 2 the states would enter in proceedings in the other states.
3 MR. SHAPAR: Could do it. Beyond that --
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You then have a --
5 MR. SHAPAR: Yes, that's true. But beyond that, 6 this is a matter that could be handled very well in the DOE'
/ guidelines.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, it's going to be a 9
problem.
10 MR. SHAPAR: This is a matter -- This is a matter --
II (Inaudible voice.)
I2 MR. SHAPAR: This'is a matter that could be addressed 13 and dealt with in the FOE guidelines .
Id COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : The DOE.
15 MR. SHAPAR: DOE guidelines, yes.
16 Similar matters are now addressed in those -- in the I7 requirements for what the guidelines show and shall address.
18 Now, those are the three main strands of this bill.
I9 Let me say at this point'that it's generally consistent with --
20 j CHAIRMAN HE RIE : Let's see. There's another half 21 to the state-federal thing, and that is --
22 MR. SHAPAR: Yes, you're absolutely right.
3 CHAIRMAN HEI RIE: -- and that is that the states - ,
^
MR. SHAPAR: The states don't elect to come in Ace Federal Reporters. Inc. ;
25 l pursuant to the DOE guidelines, then -- j l
i
21 i
- , i l .
bw19 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well , or if they ' re not --
2 O
@)
CHAIRMAN HENpRIE: Up to snuff on the guidelines.
9 3
(Simultaneous voices.)
4 MR. SHAPAR: They don't meet the federal guidelines, then the Federal Government will do the entire job.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY : More or less of a general 7
provision, in the national interest, pres umably .
n 8 fnK. PEDEI?SEN:
[0 -VOICE. But not totally or in part serving the 9 !
national interest?
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY : Something like that.
11 MR. SHAPAR: Right.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : Could I ask in that case what 13 the legislation does to further the objectives? In other words, 14 .
we now have a situation which the states, for whatever reason, l !
15 l have not been able to sort this thing out, and the resolution l 16 devolves back on the Federal Government.
17 Now, what is the legislation to do to improve the ,
l 18 ! l licensing process in that situation? l l
19 MR. SHAPAR: Well, it says that in that situation 20 where the states either do not choose to come in or are unable 21 to meet the DOE guidelines, that the Federal Government will do l
22 l the whole job of environmental accepability, pursuant to the i 23 new other --
24 Amrworsi smoners, ine. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask you something 25 l about that. Is that -- Can you take over everything? In other' f
bw20 i 22 )
1
. , l 1
1 words, can you prevent a state from dealing with matters of 4-i-naud4 trit) and so on?
C// 2 h
3 MR. SHAPAR: Can you? Yes. Assuming there's a j 4 legitimate national --
- 5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Is the legislation -- Is the 6 purpose of the legislation to do that?
7 MR. SHAPAR: Yes. Yes.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Oh, it is? l l
l 9 MR. SHAPAR: Yes, it is .
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It isn't just radiological 11 matters, it preempts all state proceedings --
l 12 MR. SHAPAR: Everything on enviromental acceptability-13 and need for power.
t 14 I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: -- other than the Clean i
15 Water, other than what they have under the Clean Water Act and --
16 MR. SHAPAR: Other than what responsibilities have l 17 already devolved to them, as a result of other federal statutes, 18 like the Clear Air Act and the Water Pollution Control Act. <
fj 19 MR. KELLY: So it would take away something they 've i
20 got now.
21 MR. SHAPAR: Exactly.
i 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And what you're using sort !
l 23 of the interstate aspect of our -- f i 1 24 MR. SHAPAR: Sure , the nation 's need for energy. l Ace Feders' heoorters, Inc 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : Could you tell me how the i
!' t l
bw21 23 l 1 nation's need for energy is going to be somehow better satisfied 2 by a circumstance inj which the Federal Government continues to 3 act essentially as it does now by statute?
, 4 MR. SHAPAR: Well, number one --
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's where we're leading, 6 because there are a number of cases where that's exactly what's 7 going to happen, and we're throwing the whole ball -- ball of 8 wax back into the Federal Government and not one godamn thing 9 has been done, as far as I can see, to sort out what the real 10 problem is.
11 An enormous mass of conflicting rules and regulations!,
12 not the least of which was just passed and signed by the j f
13 President within the last week in Washington, D. C. Not in 14 Podunk, but in Washington, D.C. l 15 We ' re on the wrong track. We' re f acing the wrong l l
16 problem. We're facing the wrong problem. The United States i i
i 17 Government hasn't faced up to its own responsibilities in this l i
18 piece of legislation. l 9 !
d l9 CHAIRMAN HENdRIE : Well, there might a dif ference l 20 to it, that it does seem to me that there are some states now, ,
21 and New York is one, and I can -- !
i l 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: We've been working with New !
)
i 23 York, Maryland and others for a very long time, and moved a i 24 very long way along that line.
Ace Fedoral Rem >rters, Inc. 4 9
G S25 CHAIRMAN HEN 0'RIE : We've just -- They're still ,
h ! l l ,
l i
i 1
. bw22 24 f
I struggling merrily along up there on a power station in which the 2
same issues, the same people have gone through a state pro-3 ceeding and are in -- I gue.ss are still in the NRC hearing. I 4
try not to keep very close track of it. And it seems to me S
unreasonable that there --
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Not because the Commission 7
didn't instruct its staf f to be certain that that situation, !
8 if it were possible to avoid it, would be avoided.
)
9 D 6 CHAIRMAN HENp'RIE: Well, I'm sorry, it exists and'here )
10 I is legislation that -- l 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: All I'm telling you is that --
12 Well, Mr. Chairman, all I'm saying, I think you will agree what 13 I mean, we sat there at the table and told this staff, f 14 I unequivocally, that the Commission's policy in this regard was I 15 be sure that that didn' t happen. And everything was done to be 16 sure that it was one operation, a single hearing.
17 f (Simultaneous voices.)
18 MR. SHAPAR: I think that you're talking about the 19 Douglas Point thing --
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : Yes. ,
21 i MR. SHAPAR: -- which has been postponed?
22 p g. 96 D 6 (L 96 Wi 3 JVOTCC:/ I think you may be talking about dif ferent 23 things. '
24 f Ace federal Reporters, Inc. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : Oh, we may be talking about f 25 !
two different cases?
f f
i
25 l
bw23 1 (Simultaneous voices.)
2 MR. SHAPAR: Douglas Point has gone very well from 3 the state's standpoint as far as --
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: P reci sely .
5 (Simultaneous voices.)
6 MR. SHAPAR: I think he's talking abo,ut Greene County 7 Perhaps.
CHAIRMAN HEN, RIE : I'm talking about Jamesport,
@8 9 New York, where the State of New York has brought two nuclear 10 he a rings , and the NRC's running two or three.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I'm talking about Greene W
County, in which wegspecifically Gieaudibl-e-) doing that.
n312 p%R.QASE; C 313 VOIGE7A We' re doing that. We're doing that.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : Exactly. And it's working 15 well, I'm told. l
,MR..OAS5 l It's working very badly,
' 3 16 VOICE:A Not timewise.
17 timewise. l 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well this correct that?
C//f}MMAN F/END2/E:
Ie s e steg in trying to
% 19 40+eE:n(1naud131e.)
20 sort it out.
21 MR. SHAPAR: Well, in a sense, yes, that you won' t i
22 have two -- both the state and the Federal Government doing the j 23 same thing.
E 124 MR. KELLY: Howard, on that point --I think this Ace Fedotel Re6crt #4 i nc, 25 is a significant point. In the event a state either fails I
bw24 26 1 or declines to mount an effective NEPA program of its own, 2 could DOE -- You said the Federal Government would then do.i 3 it. Could DOE say, we 'll do it in DOE. Or would NRC do the 4 impact statement or is that --
5 MR. SHAPAR: The idea would be that NRC would do it, 6 be the lead agency for that.
7 (Simultaneous voices.)
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : What does the statute say?
9 MR. SHAPAR: The statute doesn't say who the --
% 10 MR. PEDERS N: Appropriate agency, is what it says.
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : Who is that? l E l
' ry 12 MR. PEDERSpN: I took it to mean who DOE would ;
l 13 define as the appropriate agency. >
'I 14 MR. KELLY: I've heard it referred to the Commission 7 A 15 several times, j E
~ 716 MR. PE DERS,dN : I guess we would be it, by almost
?
i 17 any definition. I I
18 MR, SHAPAR: I'm sure it would --
19 (Simultaneous voices.)
V MR. PEDERSpN: The determination would be done by h20 21 the DOE.
6
< 22 MR. KELLY: No. It doesn' t that either. It iust
- ,1 23 doesn' t say. It says appropriate agency.
O C'24- CHAIRMAN HENORIE : No , I ' m s u re th a t i t --
Ace Federal Reporte a, Inc.
25 MR. SH APAR: It Would be the NRC.
l I
bw25 '
27 ;
/)
2l In that circumstance, I fo res ee CHAIRMAN HEN [fRIE:
2 no way that this agency could avoid its responsibilities under 3 the National Environmental Policy Act and go ahead and do it.
1%fl. GAS 6l .5 4
CO!vil55wran G/darmni: Well, it's not so outlandish, A
5 because the federal-stateg (2,nauditrief recommended DOE.
O O g 6 CHAIRMAN HENJJRIE: To do the --
F T 7 COMMISSIONER KLINSKY: Actually, the federal-state 8 study, basically, should leave everything to DOE, and DOE 9 would parcel it out to the states, as appropriate.
E 10 MR. KELLY: You have to bear in mind that they are II amending the National Environmental Policy Act, so you can.do 12 whatever you with that Act.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, I think there are two i l
14 concepts here, one is movino thinas out to the states and not l
( Al(20 havina duolications f rom the s ta tes n n6 I--- (in,WM'd Nu audi ' dh M other j 16
_i_3- movino things to DOE. This does both. And really, as a j
i 17 oractical matter, since in the beginning, although only a small 18 number of states would qualify, you' re basically shifting the 39 whole environmental responsibility to DOE.
20 MR. SHAPAR: I think that's not the intent,now.
21 The language, of course, can be tightened. I think the only l
22 role envisaged for DOE is a nonsubstantive one, one of 23 coordinating. One of setting up target dates and that sort of ;
i 2d th ing .
Ace Fedoral Reporters, !nc, 25 Now the language can be -- You know, one of the l
t I 1
? l I
bw26 28 ,
4 I recommendations -- you might want to -- to tighten that up.
(2 /LIWS L }ll 2 COMMISSIONER -KENNEDT: We11 I --
i 3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: If the whole package was 4 so designed as to accomplish one of two purposes , one of two 5 alternatives, it would seem to me to make a great deal of 6 sense. First, that things be shifted to the states, to the
! 7 extent that they can be. Or, alte rnatively , if they cannot be, l l
8 l that they are shifted to a single agency of the United States 9 Government to clean them up. Then you will have accomplished 10 something.
II But, if what you do is shif t them to the states 12 where only a handful willl qualify, alternatively, they will l 13 come back to the Federal Government, and the morass that now Id exists in the Federal Government continues, enhanced, indeed, 1
15 '
by a new coordinating role for the DOE, I don't think you've 16 accomplished a damn thing.
I7 MR. SHAPAR: Of course, you raised a very good 18 political question. You've got various federal statues now, I9 like the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Clear Air 20 Act with various federal statutes performing those functions, 21 and each of these statutes having its own provisions regarding 22 delegation of certain authorities to the states.
23 Now , what you' re sugges ting, I think, and in logic 24 it has a lot of merit, is to somehow pull together all these Ace Federet Reporters, Inc.
25 federal functions on one agency. This bill does not i
l
29
, bw27 ,
I do that. This bill --
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : This was not my" understanding, 3 or was I wrong when I understood the President of the United 4 States to say that he was concerned about all this, this whole 5 question of nuclear power plant licensing, and that he was 6 going to commission a study to look into that to see how that 7 could be improved, following which he was going to put legis-8 lation before the Congress to implement the basic recommendations 9 of the studies; is that correct?
10 I That was my understanding of what he said.
Il Now, I see the legislation, I don ' t see the s tudy. l 12 I see the legislation, but I guess I don't see the study.
13 And that's the first consideration I have, and the second one !
Id is, if he had done a study, the very question that we're now l
15 discussing would have been surfaced. And it is not in this j 16 bill, as you correctly assert.
17 And that's one of the basic problems. Seabrook i
i 18 didn ' t arise out of New Hampshire. Seabrook arose out of 1
I9 Washington, D. C. And Seabrook will arise again. l l
20 You know. What have we done? What are we doing i
21 in this , to solve that kind of a problem. I assert: nothing. !
c I g22 MR. PEDE RS,dN : Howard, do any of these Acts that 23 you cite, that make delegations to the states , do any of them l 24 !
contain comparable overrides like this one does, that the Feds l Acc rxtor i nesorteri. ine.
25 can go back in and on a rather abrupt basis terminate a hearing i
bw28 30 l
1 th a t ' s --
2 MR. SHAPAR: Yes --
MR. PEDERS h: -- two-thirds through? Do they have 4
commission?
5 MR. SHAPAR: Yes.
6 IA fos D
/ VOICE: (Inaudible) has such requiremeng,. (inaudible . )
7 MR. SHAPAR: Ri gh t . This is not a novel concept.
1 8
By the way, you have a similar provision in 274 of l 9
the Atomic Energy Act. You find the program is no longer 10 adequate to protect the public health and safety, we can 11 terminate under the 274 agreement.
12 Shall we wait for the Chairman? I'm at your 13 pleasure.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, I think we ought to 15 wait.
16 (Recess.)
17 MR. SHAPAR: I would sum up as follows:
18 The bill, as submitted, is consistent with the 19 prior NRC bill with certain glaring exceptions , the main one 20 of which is the adjudicatory hearing. In most other respects, 21 it is the same.
22 l
It is consistent with former Chairman Rowden's '
23 testimony on June 13th before Udall's committee, and it's 24 Aa r.o.rci a.m nen.inc. generally consistent with the Ryan Study, with the exception I 25 I of the back off from the adjudicatory hearing. l I l 1
- b. w,2 9 ,
31 '
I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: How about the bank sites 2
problem, in which there's not previously been a limit, of which 3
now there's a ten-year limit established?
4 MR. SHAPAR: I regard that as not a monumental issue, 5
but it is a change.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, let's think about it, 7
What are the ramifications of it?
O Well, doesn't it say ten years, except MR. SHAPAR:
9 for good cause shown?
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : Yes, which means less, of 11 course , not more .
4egw: I e 12 7 VGleE:fNotreally.
I 13 (Laughte r . )
I 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: If you just stop and think l 15 about this -- ! l
\ l i
16 MR. SHAPAR: We only contemplated five years , I j l
17 should tell you that. l l
18 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : If you stop and think, well, ,
i 19 i you know, banking sites for five years, by the time you get !
20 through with the exercise, it isn' t worth the trouble .
l 21 MR. SHAPAR: In our -- In the old NRC -- l 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : And anybody who's in that 23 l' business will be glad to say so. You know, they do .
i 24 wreemi neponm, inc, MR. SHAPAR: In the old NRC bill, it had no pre- l I
25 scribed time period, it was left for rule or regulation by the j
)
bW30 32 1 Commission. This bill mentions ten years. That's the only 2 dif ference .
3 I think the most controversial --
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I think thereby makes --
5 (inaudible.)
6 MR. SHAPAR: Perhaps.
7 Let me sum up by saying that I think that there are 8 two greatly controversial elements in this bill which I'm sure 9 will be borne out by future events , if they survive in the 10 bill.
Il The first one is the back of f from the ; rial-type 12 hearing. And the second is the preemption of states' environ-13 mental review responsibilities , in the event the states either 14 fail to come into the DOE guidelines or can't meet them. .
15 In summary, I'd say those are the main controversial 16 points, and they're really controversial. l 17 I would also say that my experience has been that 18 nobody likes the present system. The environmentalis ts don' t I9 like it and have said so.
20 I don't think the Staff likes it very much. You l l
21 have had the Denton Study. You' ve had the Ryan study. It's l 22 pretty clear the Staff doesn't like the present system.
23 I And the applicants sure as hell don't like it.
l l
24 So I think we have a present situation, where nobody, where Ace-FMerst Recorters, inc. l j
25 no element of the constituency re lly likes the present sys tem.
I
.bw31 33 j And I guess I'll conclude my remarks by --
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't know if that's 3 really so. I mean, everybody complains about the present 4 system but these various groups want to go in different 5 directions.
6 MR. SHAPAR: Oh, sure, they do, indeed, want to go !
I 7
in different directions , but I would stand on my own conclusion, 8
which is my own personal conclusion, that nobody really likes 9 the present system for dif ferent reasons.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : If you're correct, and I l 11 suspect you are, Victor, this bill is probably a monumental 12 achievement, in this regard, because this one will be satis-f actory to none of them. l 13 ,
14 MR. SHAPAR: Whichistrueofmostgoodlegislation,f I
15 I guess.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : Now, it usually is satisf actory I
17 to somebody, even if only to the draf ter. i !
18 MR. SHAPAR: I guess --
('c/I!JYStcxit/L$//lWWfl f ' ~" ' " '
Qy 19 --VOIC"pg Certainly, the lawyers like the (-inaudibic . )
l l 20 (Laughte r. ) j 1
MR. SHAPAR: Remember again, I want to state I l 21 l
i l
22 haven' t expressed an opinion about this bill. ! 1 l
23 My concluding remark, I guess, would be that this isl I
24 a matter of political judgment, in which you ' re more adept than ,
A&FCderal Reporters, Inc.
25 I am, and it would be this --
l l i
l l
l
bw32 34 1
j COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It's kind of you to day, 2 Oven if it isn' t true.
3 MR. SHAPAR: I guess my concluding thought would be 4 that I think there's an open window on legislation now. You 5 have a new DOE just organized. You've got the energy package 6 that's had monumental success in terms of Congressional pressure 7 and ability to get it through the Congress.
8 My own view is there is a very narrow time, two 9 months, three months , you name it, six months , maybe , to get 10 legislation through. If you don't like this legislation, then 11 whatever legislation you do like, I would urge you to move fast,
. 12 just as a matter of sheer political reality. And I think that I
window will close in five or six months. l 13 14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: All righty. Rushing to 13 jump through open windows has two possible results. Ei ther !
16 you land in a sandpile and have an enjoyable time, or you land .
I
\
17 on concrete and break your head.
l 18 And unless you' ve looked through the window before 19 you jump, you' re never really sure which it's going to be.
20 MR. SHAPAR: Or it's like playing leapfrog with '
21 a unicorn.
I 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : That's right.
D
((7j 23 CHAIRMAN HEydRIE: Enough of these pleasantries. l 24 Comments on this side of the table.. What I wanted Aas ee,e anoneri. ine. t 25 to do was just pass around and, you know, sort of rotate the _I 1
1
9 35 bw33 delight and --
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Are we going to get a Staff 3
view on this?
4 MR. GOSSICK: The Commission has not actually asked S
the people to write down their comments. I am sure the people 6
have reviewed --
C Not in the context of this
$ CHAIRMAN HEN, RIE:
8 very brief sort of thing, I don't -- certainly, in the long )
I run, why, I would think some advice --
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask you, has this been circulated to other agencies?
12 MR. SHAPAR: I don't know.
MR. GOSSICK: I'm told that it has not. The intent 14 is to go out this -- tomorrow, Friday, to the other government t
15 !
agencies and to the National Governors Conference. j 16 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: At the same time? l 17 !
MR. GOSSICK: Yes.
('p 18 Nil Sh VGEGE H They' ve already been received, Mr. Chairman, 19 by the National Governors Conference, as we found out from 20 talking to our contact there yesterday.
21 i
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, in other words , whatever j 22 \
comments we were going to be proposing, if we had any, would 23 have had no effect on anything they would have asked the 24 l ha.oer.i n.poneri inc. Governors about. I wanted to be sure of -- you know, I'd like,!
25 I'm trying to get an idea where we stood in this exercise. I I
I
, bw34 36
. p.y A NS n
31 ' VOICE /} My understanding, if I may, Mr. Chairman, 2 was that --
D 3 CHAIRMANHENfRIE: Please do.
ng M RA:
4 (9/&f&-- the draf t sent to the National Governors
, b ;
5 Conference was intended to solicit the same kind of views th at l l
6 you characterize our views here , that is, preliminary views, 7 looking to yet another draf t with those views reflected in it.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I mean, has this gone around c 9 El'A N O to (-in e udibic ) it-affected, which is going to get coordinated. i I
f I mean, all of these agencies who are going to get coordinated 10 11 as this is signed into law, have they seen it? Have they i
- 12 commented on it? Are they doing the same thing we're doing? l i l 13 MR. SHAPAR: I don't know the answer to your j l
14 question. I got the impression from that letter, that we were 15 getting the first crack at it,, but I don't know whether that's 16 so or not. l l
17 MR. GOSSICK: All I can say is that my in my conversation a 18 with Ahearne, he said it was going to go out Friday to other ,
4 1
19 government agencies and to the National Governors Conference, i
&L y 20 And I gather it's already gone to the Nation,l'/ Governors 1
21 Con fe rence , so I would assume that perhaps it's gone to at 1 i
22 least some government agencies, as well, I --
(j)23 N :g Mr. Chairman, we received a number of 24 telephone calls this last couple days asking for copies of this f )
Aa Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 legislation proposed today, from other agencies, so I think they j
37 i t bw)5 , ! l I have not received anything.
2 MR. SHAPAR: So, apparently, they gave the NRC the 3 first crack at it.
D 4
CHAIRMANHEtpRIE: Have we got anything we'd like to i
5 trade-- (
l 6 (Laughte r. )
7 MR. SHAPAR: You have a Clean Air Act amendment. J 8 CHAIRMAN HEN IE: How about a letter from Doug 9
Genstel (?) on the Clean Air Act?
10 I don't think it'll sell.
Il Let's see, the Friday would be presumably the 12 customary OMB distribution of proposed legislation to the i l
13 agencies. l Id COMMISSIONE R KENNEDY : If that's the case, you know, 15 what we were being asked then to provide yesterday, the part 16 you had in effect, because even if they got it yesterday, they 17 would had today to make what might have been or at least consider 18 what might have been substantial revision before putting it I9 Therefore, whatever we were being asked to provide out to --
i 20 was interesting, but probably academic, in terms of their I 21 further distribution. l l
22 MR. SHAPAR: I don't think that's right, because the -- l' 23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Oh, Howard, statistics and 2d logistics -- ;
Ace Federal Repor ers, Inc. j
, 25 CHAIRMAN HEN RIE : I agree with your conclusion, (? )
,, j 1
l l
bw36 38 n l
?I but not your premise. fInaudib g g[ gg l But the conclusion arrives COMMISSIONEF KENNEDY://
3 in the process.
r 4 O Le t ' see, at the :aoment -- So
/ CHAIRMAN HEN,pRIE:
5 we will presumably get a distribution momentarily through 6
normal channels for distribution of draft legislation.
7 In the meantime, I must say those of us who were 8
addressed directly by Mr. Ahearne, I would think wculd be free 9
to communicate back with him or not, as you see fit, I would think.
11 I don't know -- I called the office this morning to l t
12 see what was going on and found out that he's going to be on 13 leave until Monday. ;
14 VOICE: Somebody told me on the Gold Coast.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Gold Coast?
w 3
CHAIRMAN HEN,0RIE : I don't know. I 17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What a great place to go on 18 leave -- jeeze.
h3 CHAIRMAN HEN,dRIE: I take the leave back. He may (I
20 have been on assignment. !
21 But, anyway, he wasn't in the office.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : It's so far-ranging, it must i
23 be a solar project.
2A
'we-Ftrderal Reporters, Inc.
' Laughter.)
i CHAIR *iAN HEN,ORIE : I must say, my own feeling is that f
39 bw37' I any ponse that I'd care to make on this short-time would be 2 a telephone call, rather than writing letters.
3 Now, well, shall we start around then? Why don't 4 we go around clockwise.
C-fs5 MR. KELgY: Well, I'm not an expert on this bill.
6 I guess I would feel fairly comfortable with the old (inaudible) 7 and early siting and standardization, I feel a little less 8 sure in my own mind about the three other major elements we've 9 talked about.
10 ) h We do have the 102 study nts in 4(irn"M hie) and that fvEkun' 11 addresses both delegation of legal responsibilities , and at least 12 touches on -- it doesn't go into depth -- into the coordination ,
l I
13 concept,as I understand it.
- 14
/ COMMISSIONER GILINSK : Where does that stand?
15 Is there some time limit on this?
16 MR. RYAN: No, sir, we have not asked the Governors ;
17 or the other federal agencies for a specific date. We have l i
l 18 received a number of responses. We have sent an information i
I 19 forward to the Commission concerning that. We have heard from I
\
20 15 states to date. And we are making calls on that other piece 21 of business we have going for liaison of ficers.--We now have , ;
i I
22 by the way, 41 liaison of ficers appointed by the Governors ,-- l t :
f and asking if I
23 the state intends to make responses. In many ! l 24 cases, the answer is yes (inaudible).
m Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 I expect that in the next two or three weeks, we'll i
l l
bw38 40
- , , r 3
be .having another round of responses from the Governors on it.
We have also distributed the thing to other federal 2
! agencies. We've heard from a number of those agencies, and 3
4 we'll be getting formal comments probably by the end of this 5 month.
6 We distrfbuted it to'various individuals in the environmental area and utility groups, and so on. We've had 7
8 a number of responses there. And we sent an information copy 9
to the Congress, not asking for or expecting to receive 39 comments. .
I 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Could we -- Bob, would it make 12 any sense just sort of in fairness --
[
13 MR. RYAN: Uh-hum.
1 i
ja COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: -- if we're urging states !
15 wAo have not yet recponded to do so quickly, call their i 16 attention to the fact that, whereas they may not yet realize 17 it -- you know, bureaucracies being what they are, and we 18 ought to know that well -- there may be something in their mail-19 box down at the end of the hall, such as this document, it 20 might have some bearing on what they might want to say --
21 MR. RYAN: We have been doing that, sir. The 22 Energy Daily, for instance, had stories about the tendency of 23 the Administration bill sometime ago, whether that --
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yea, but I'm saying that !
' Att F pderat Seportus, Inc.
25 right now the thing, you tell me, is in the Governors Conferenc ,
i b,
i ..
41 4 abw39 ,
and, therefore, is technically in the house. But most of the
)
2 guys that you'll be cal]ing won' t -- probably won ' t yet know 3
th a t . So,if they were hurried, dealing with your excellent 4
piece of work, they may not have realized at the same time, 5
it would have been helpful had they been able to sit down and 6
look at your piece of work, at the same time they were looking 7
at this piece of work, and think through the kind of comments 2
that would be most helpful to all concerned.
8 9
MR. RYAN: I agree.
10 May I say something about --
i 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : I realize that that has a 1 i
12 ring of unreality, because in Washington people don't norme.lly:
' \
13 , do things like that, do they? l ja Everybody responds to each individual little piece l 15 ,
separately and distinctly. ;
MR. RYAN.
Mc~Mcw And each agency adds cere" king +n +kam- -.
o 16 u
f 'hs~
l'Lnaudibin) l 17
! 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : Right. l D
, i 19 CHAIRMAN HENpRIE : It seems to me we' re enoriaously i l
i 20 well-coordinated here. I can' t think for the rest of the 21 government -- l 22 (Laughter.) !
l 23 (Simultaneous voices.) l Q
CHAIRMAN HEN %RIE: After all, I' ve been here three i
$24 sc.a .o.<. Reporte,( inc.
25 days, what else is there to learn?
I i
. 42 bw40
, 1 (Laughte r. )
- 2 MR. RYAN
- May I make one observation'on
- 3 Mr. Shapar's remark about timeliness. I agree with him entirely
- 4 about the timely nature of the thing. But I would make one 1
5 observation about the Congress. The first session of the 1 6 Congress is scheduled to end, I think, in the second week in 1
1 7 October. In the Senate they will be preoccupied with the a
8 Energy Bill. I don't think there's a ghost of a chance of any i
9 substantive action on siting legislation in the first session 10 of the 95th Congress. l 11 l
But I do think it is timely for the pieces to come 12 together,. if there is to be any f acility siting in the next
{
10 session. And the time to do that is now, i
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But you're suggesting that we ,
15 do have time, time wid1 whi< to think this through carefully and 16 produce a piece of legislation which all could stand forth- l 17 rightly behind and push vigorously.
18 MR. RYAN: Well, I understand that is the intention i
19 '
of the Administration also, sir.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But not within the next two j 2' ***k"' i pg.p5p52500:
} 22 -VOICn:
4 Thomas Je fferson 's dead.
O 23 CHAIRMAN HEN,pRIE : Not necessarily push in the same i
i 24 direction, you understand, it is --
AmFNerol Reponers, Inc.
25 MR. SHAPAR: I think the letter that you all got says ;
I 43 jeril I tFat it is the Administration's intent to deposit this with the 2 Congress September 7th. And assuming that reflects 3 Mr. Schlesinger's legislative strategy, I would suggest that 4 maybe recent events show that he is a pretty good tactician.
[5 CHAIRMAN HEN RIE:
F_
Okay, are there any others, Jim?
6 MR. KELLY: Yes, just brief. I think there is going 7 to have to be a Commission position on this legislation. And 8 I realize that you don't want to take a year to figure out what 9
that is going to be but I think it would be unfortunate to get 10 painted into a corner at this point. The on-the-record thing II I think does need a hard look inside. I am sure that a hard 12 look at that would show that the on-the-record proceedings -- I 1
I I3 they are our favorite whipping boy here in terms of delay and Id in a given case I am sure that is true -- but whether you can 15 really make a case for saying that is where the problem is, sm l 16 let's get rid of them, I think, is another question.
17 I think the Commission should hear from people like l l
18 Al Rosenthal and Jim Yore who run these hearings as to their I9 evaluation as to how much good they do, not just on the score of 20 what new information comes in, but the work stamp by role 1
21 in the contested proceeding. produces a better record. I think -
l 22 these are hard questions -- I don't know the answer to them. f 23 I think there are other oeople in the agency that f 24 i b Federol Reporters. Inc. i 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Would 0 C be inclined to l
I ,
- I 44 jeri 2 1 produce an analysis of this?
c
}2 MR.
KELLf:
Take our March -- we just came in the 3 other day with this. And we had to discuss it with Howard, 4 provide this.
5 MR. SHAPAR: I think it would be better if you 6 didn't discuss it with me. Do it independently --
6
}$ 7, MR. KELgY Are you tired of this?
D 8 CHAIRMAN HENpRIE: I think as we go forward and begin 9 a more formal, detailed review of these things, that the custo-10 mary arrangement of the Commission and its Staff offices prevail.;
11 that is, on behalf of the Regulatory Staff, per se, the Execu-i 12 tive Director and his staf f, Howard 's people find it acceptable.'
13 All in the other affected offices will gather together a pointj 14 of view which we can discuss here in -- !
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Or different points of view, i i
16 if appropriate.
D 17 CHAIRMAN HENdRIE: Or different points of view if
}$
18 appropriate. I think the Commission has the right legal 19 support from the General Counsel and his staff where they could 20 develop a point of view of their own to discuss with us.
21 Madison and his division similarly. I don't know whether Carl f ;
l 22 will want to comment on the merits of the bill, but at least 23 we will be interested to hear some of the aspects as seen from 24 kr FedeM Rumqns, ine.
your side in terms of practicalities, timing, andotheraspectsf 25 of that kind. i i
45
- jeri 3 1 Doesn't that seem -- you know, in terms of asking who 2 should review what, I think --
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Let us recall, Mr. Chairman,
?
4 that Howard reminds us that the letter tell us they intend to
- 5 deposit this with the Congress on September 7. So if we are 6 going to do any of this it had better be done within a week 7 or it is going to have absolutely no effect except for history.
8 I'm not sure that it will be otherwise in any event. At least 9
I would like to have it there sooner.
D
}g10 CHAIRMAN HEN,$RIE: I don't agree that that's neces-l II sary, Dick, because they will deposit it -- they may, in fact, 12 and they are very likely under a strong drive from the White 13 House to deposit'the bill on September 7, but I think the !
Id Congress, as has been pointed out, will take it under advise- l 15 ment. I am not sure how soon the various committees will be !
16 able to, you know, work through other business they like I7 better and should we hum to it.
I8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Are we only to take our view lo then with the Congress? Or are we to take our view before 20 this legislation is submitted to the Congress so that there 21 will be no mistake within the government, at least, how we feel?,
22 I would think that it would be desirable for them to know if l i
23 we have some views on these matters before they submit the !
i 24 bill. They can submit anything they want obviously, but if we A& revoi semnm. ine.
25 have views, it would be, well, fair to them, I should tlink, l
r
- . . l 46 ijeri 4 1 to let them know what those views are so that they will under-2 stand that that may be what we say if called upon to testify.
3 You know, I think that is fair to them.
4 MR. SHAPAR: The letter to all of you did say they 5 would like your views,f.in effect, before they went public with 6 it.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Yes.
8 MR. SHAPAR: Whatever that means.
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: And if we are going to take 10 a position --
t #
CHAIRMAN HEN,6RIE: Look, each of us who was so f 11 i
12 addressed can refine his view as he sees fit. l 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, I think it as well as Id the Commission's view.
15 CHAIRMAN HEN RIE: Well, I don't think the Commission can l 16 form a view until there has been a reasonable look taken at it 17 by the Staff.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I am only suggesting that I9 they ought to be able to do that in a week.
6-p 20 MR. KELLY: In terms of your time frame, I gather 21 you are sort of socked in with budget sessions -- the next two 22 weeks? I am raising the question whether we might not write I 23 papers in the next couple of weeks and program it for right 24 we Federal Resx>rters, Inc.
I 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, I think it might l 4
l
47 iri 5 1 definitely be considered. I mean, I wouldn't like to do it so 2 fast that they don't do a pretty good job on it.
C3 MR. PEDERS N: I think you've also got to 4 be careful of not appearing to overreact to the overtures by 5 the Administration. Falling all over yourselves.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I'm thinking of -- my assump-7 tion is we are going to be getting this in the normal course 8 as well as this.
6 9 When can we expect to get it from MR. PEDE RSf')N :
10 OMB in the normal course?
II I COMMISSIONER IGNNEDY: Somebody said it was being 12 distributed and thought it would be the OMB --
13 MR. GOSSICK: Somebody says it will come to us in Id that mode as well.
15 (Sinultaneous voices.) l I6 CHAIRMAN HEN IE: Okay about normal distribution. l 17 I agree with you. We can't do it, you know, overnight, I' m 18 afraid; it just --
l9 Well, I never felt that over-COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
20 night lasted a week. I have never had a life like that --
21 except here.
1 22 (Laughter.)
23 CHAIRMAN HEt RIE:
q, I think this is a matter of high ,
r I 2d interest to the agency and one that we need to turn to -- the l he Federol Reporters, Inc, j
25 Commission needs to turn to as soon as it reasonably can. But i 1
(
i i
4 i
4 48 J jeri 6 1 I think the couple of weeks that it will take us to work through 2 the budget cycle, a minimum time that your office, your Division 3 needs to think about these things in the forms of views, and I
$ 4 would'not expect this to be able to come forward to the Commis-5 sion any more rapidly than, you know, several weeks. And that ,
6 means about the time they plot the crop in Congress.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But that means that we will 8 then, as a Commission, not have conveyed our views to the 9 federal -- contribute to the --
1 1
4 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, they set things up
]
! Il this way, it becomes of great dif ficulty --
I2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, I'm not sure, you know, 13 that's three weeks of f, and if we are sr.ying on a piece of i d
I l Id legislation -- i 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Which, after all, as Howard t
i 16 has pointed out, i's really our own, I mean, you know, it rests l l
17 upon all the principles that we have espoused over the past 18 several years. If we are unable in three weeks to put a piece 39 of considered judgment before the Executive Branch, there is 20 room for licensing improvement without a doubt. They are aiming i
21 I at the wrong targets, but there is -- we have just given them i
22 a perfect example of what the problem is. We are an agency i 23 paralyzed. !,
2d CHAIRMAN HE!!0RIE: Not really. We are an agency Alt Fedefst Repirtees, Inc.
25 caught between the '79 budget --
i i
4 49
'jeri 7 1 COMMISSIONER GrQWSKY: Strangulated for years.
2 CCM4ISSIONER KENNEDY: We can do more than one thing 3 at a time. I am confident we can.
4 MR. GOSSICK: Mr. Chairman, I think that I can --
5' COM.MISSIONER GILINSKY: I mean, how long would it 6 take?
7 MR. GOSSICK: I think we can get that view; that is, 8 the views of the Staff, and there will be differing views, I 9 can assure you of that, to you in a matter of two or three days.
10 I think that is --
11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: We can double that and give 1
12 you a week which would be plenty of time. i l t
33 1 CHAIRMAN HEN RIE: I don't think we can do an adequat i
14 job in that time frame.
l 15 MR. GOSSICK: In the meantime, I would -- !
I 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Now we are finding out where l l
17 our troubles lie. l 1
18 MR. GOSSICK: In response to this immediate note, 19 Ahearn)saidhewassendingittomebecause--3.thatwaslast f3 20 Saturday -- he wasn't sure there was a quorum, and he figured, 21 you know, in the meantime, he better send it to me. He, in I l
I 22 fact, asked me the middle initials of all of the Commissioners 23 and the Commissioners-designate -- anyway, I don't propose to I 24 answer this note. I don't think I should. There is a quorum l Ace FMera1 Reporters, Inc. ,
l 25 now. I would only be giving my personal views; I would not I,
I 50
- j eri 8 1 propose to give Staff views to him without reference to the 2 Commission, so I would leave this up to the Commission to make 3 any phone call or whatever, responding to this note.
4 CHAIRMAN HEN RIE: I want to hear some other guys 5 before we quit. Al and Jim, I expect separately -- we would
- 6 like to have your views on the legislation. And I think -- you i
! 7 can get together if you like, but I expect you may want to l
8 develop your points of view individually, and that certainly 9 will be a very important set of inputs in the Commission's 10 discussion.
II In terms of schedule, let's start it as soon after I2 the current budget sessions as --
13 MR. GOSSICK: I'll propose a --
I4 0 CHAIRMAN HENpRIE: -- soon as people can come 15 together which is --
l l
16 MR. GOSSICK: I'll propose our own deadline as far j i
17 as getting the Staff comments to you. Tomorrow there is no 18 budget hearing, Monday there is no budget hearing, plus we got I9 a weekend. I'll have you our comments by Monday evening.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Howard? If you want to take 21 the rest of the weeks. it is up to you.
22 MR. SHAPAR: I can do it. I think I need more time 23 to study it, but I can do it.
2d 4, Federot Reorters, Inc.
(Simultaneous voices.)
25 MR. GOSSICK: I mean nothing but the substantive {
l d
51 jeri9 1 comments -- you are looking for the substantive comments as to 2 the --
6 MR. KELLY:
g On the major issues. The more general
}$ 3 4 we get, the more you can write.
5 CHAIRMAN HEN RIE: What sort of time do you think l
l 6 you --
S .
i g7 MR. KELgY: Well, I would like to have next week, at I 8 the least. I would rather have more.
l 9 Turn this agency upside down. You 1 l
10 could write a 200-page memo or a 10-page memo. Take your pick.
11 COldMISSIONER KENNEDY: I am glad you said that be- i l
12 cause that was my view. ;
t 6
13 MR. KELLY: Maybe that would be better. I am not A .
I l 14 saying it is not good legislation, I am saying it's complex ; l 15 legislation and we can think about it a long time or a short i 1
4 16 time.
6 l g 17 MR. PEDERSdN: Mr. Chairman, I have already farmed
- y 18 it out within my office and I am happy to see that my office 19 is preparing a fair representation of the agency's -- it has j f 20 got a variety of views. I think my Monday night I could easily 21 give you a collation, a balancing of those views. I think if 22 we were try to work out an OPE position, which probably wouldn't ;
ii 23 be perhaps in your interest anyway, it would take somewhat l i' i 24 longer for them to think about it. '
l
&ce-FMersl Remrters, Inc. I 25 q CHAIRMANHENfiIE: Sam, what is the schedule for __
i L
I
\
< . . 52 l 3ri 10 1 SECRETARY CHILK: I haven't got one with me, for 2 next week. !
3 (Chairman Hendrie and Secretary Chilk conferring. )
CHAIRMAN HEN RIE: Oh, by the way, Peter Bradford Cf 5 will be in to swear in Monday. afternoon. I'll drive down 6 Monday morning and try to get here, you know, early afternoon, 7 and get a tie on and we will bind him up and get him on the 8 payroll.
9 Bill, you will be in sort of 9ish, something like 10 that? Line him up with Pat Sullivan, get him all the stuff.
II Have we got his Commission?
p10.DoCid' I2 '
-lOICE: I'll get that, should be today or first i
13 thing tomorrow. i I4 o \
CHAIRMAN HENf5RIE: Well, shake them up tomorrow l 15 and see if we car) get that in hand so we have all that together gg. Oc Al6 l 16 VEHEGE :A Shall we do that in the afternoon? j I7 CHAIRMAN HEN RIE: Yes, probably 3:00 more than 18 anything else. j I9 My thought here was, it is going to take Jim a while 20 here to rounded up. We have got a couple of days in here. I 21 wonder if we could move these guys up in here. And begin to 22 open up right after the -- you know, starting that next week.
23 It will give us -- it is going take several days. We can hear i
24 some views and then we can go hold our heads, come together, I
/ re-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 argue some, come back here to get some views again. There will!
l
. g g 53 jeri 11 1 be some drafting undoubtedly that we will want to do in terms )
2 of comments that we would like, written language that -- if 3 we can agree on some language, why that means our views are at 4 least uniform.
5 Okay, the question then, Lee, is can you move your 6 budgeted use station schedule for 23, Tuesday morning the 23rd, 7 administrative and EEO offices, up to the morning of the 17th?
8 MR. GOSSICK: Sure.
9 CHAIRMAN HEN IE: And Commission officers and Q3 10 preliminary mark --
II MR. GOSSICK: Preliminary mark you have to do at the 12 end, sir.
O 13 Yes. Well, it is the next step CHAIRMAN HENf5RIE:
I4 on the --
l 15 SECRETARY CHILK: Well, you probably have the I i
16 Commission officers when you go into your preliminary mark, 17 l unless you want to do a preliminary mark on the program.
O 18 I want to move this thing up in CHAIRMAN HEN %RIE:
l9 there and this thing up in there. Okay?
20 SECRETARY CHILK: Let me just work the details out.
O 21 CHAIRMAN HENpRIE: Okay. I 22 SECRETARY CHILK: I think we know what we want done.,
p 23 CHAIRMAN HEN RIE: 50 what we are aiming at then, as 24 a target date, is to have the stuff in hand, comments of the Am Federal Reportees, Inc, 5
officers in hand by -- well, if you could manage it by the time i
l 1
i 1
- - e 54 1 1
jeri 12 1 people get ready to leave on the 19th, why that would be handy.
2 They could read it over the weekend, and if not, why Monday 3 morning at 9:00 please, come what may.
4 (Sit 'saneous voices.)
. 5 CHAIRMAN HEN RIE: So that throws in an extra week-6 end if things stretch out.
7 pow- I wanted to -- you never got a chance to say 8 anything, did you?
C9 MR. PEDERS N: I have been waiting patiently.
3 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That is remarkable in itself.
II (Laughter.)
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Marvelous restraint.
E.
13 I have been practicing. I really MR. PEDERSpN:
Id have been practicing.
15 Just a couple of minutes, because I think our views l l
I 16 '
will be expressed more clearly in what you have just called 17 for. ,
1 18 I farmed it out within my office and got a whole I9 host of views which we will be putting together for you. I 20 think, whatever we do, and the papers you get back, we ought 2I to take a lot of care to try to ferret out the assumptions that I i
22 are built into this legislation and attempt to establish their l 23 validity. I think in here there are some assumptions built 24 in about the delay factors in hearings, I think about our
' Att Federst Ryorters, Inc. l l 25 s ability to manage our own process. I think we ought to make l
55
- rijeri13 I what those assumptions are and come to some conclusions about 2 their validity.
3 I have some specific type comments on the major 4
problems themselves, but let me just give you an indication of 5
what they might be.
6 With regard to setting of targets by DOE, for example ,
7 we have had several experiences here in the agency in which 8
individuals in the Licensing Staff and others have made allega-9 tions about trade-off s being made between safety review and 10 being pushed to meet certain goals and so. Our official position has been that that is not the case and that the Blue 12 Book does not establish those kinds of targets. And besides I3 that, those are completely within the discretion of the Id Commission to change, where safety is necessitated. I 15 I have some concern about having DOE set targets 16 i
)
and the impression that would give to these kinds of concerns l l I7 by the Staff. It seems to me we would be in a much less amen- 1 I8 l able position to argue that, in fact, those targets are set l 19 at our discretion and that we are in a position to balance them 1
20 off against safety needs and so on. Admittedly, the bill 21 allows us to go back to DOE, but it is clearly in a heroic --
2 VOICE: (Inaudible.) i 6
3 23 MR. PEDERS,dN: It very much does. But I mean I am 1
24 trying to say it affects it not only just in the broad sense, Ace Fedoral Reportets, Inc, ;
25 Commissioner, but in terms of real experiences we have had
56 jeri 14 1 in this agency.
( 2 CHAIRMAN HEN RIE: I must say I would be a lot more 3 cheerful about telling them that we are capable of managing a 4 schedule in the business here in an effective way, you know, on 5 behalf of the public if we hadn 't vatchd the decision times 6 for applications march steadily upward in the last three years.
7 And I think it is going to be very hard to sell with Congress 8 or the President or anybody else that the record is clear and 9 apparent that we are fully capable of -- j i
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Before we do that, though, -- ;
I 11 be fore we take all the opprobrium upon ourselves, I believs if 12 you look very carefully at the studies which, in fact, have I
13 been made as to the reasons underlying that, not all of them 14 are in control,by any means. And this bill is not going to j 15 correct those. i 4 h g 16 ... MR. PEDERS,0N : Let me say in that regard, too, I am 1 :
17 not sure how much this is going to speed us up, if that is the j i
18 purpose. What we have heard frequently here in terms of delays 19 are differing opinions about what the real cause of delay is. I 20 We frequently say the delays are caused by the fact that the I
21 Licensee hasn't given us adequate information. The Licensee !
22 frequently says we want too much in too much detail.
23 I don't think we are just going to, in many cases, l 24 escalate that argument to a bigger and broader and more public e f ederal Reporters, Inc.
25 forum, where DOE perhaps --
i
57 i
<jeri 15 1 Moreover, I see some strong incentives in here for 2 us, perhaps, to speed up because it is public. I am not sure 1'
3 what incentives I see in here for industry necessarily to be 4 more responsive. Industry may feel -- and I emphasis may here --
S industry may feel that because they know we have a target 6 imposed on us, that they can perhaps be less than fully forth-7 coming with an idea that they might have a more receptive re-8 sponse at DOE to their concern. I don't know if this is real, 9 bu t I think it certainly is a possibility.
10 I have problem, as I stated earlier, with the use of 11 hearings in what might appear to be a manipulative mode; in i 12 other words, indicating that if they come in as a ply, using 13 a kind of program or approach that we want them to use, namely, I
14 standardized early design and early site, that they will get a l 15 different kind of hearing that might be easier on them. And if l ;
16 they use the ol? approach, the present approach, they will have 17 to go through an adjudicatory hearing, which might be tougher 18 for them. I think this is a clear case where hearings appear to 19 be being used in a carrot-and-stick sense. I am not sure that 20 that is a very good image.
I 2I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I find that the attention 22 of the adjudicatory hearings within the process of a hearing 23 to be somewhat semifinal. So it is just the opposite of what 24 one would expect, because in one case you are considering a Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 single, a single location. In other case, you are considering I
. . . 58
'ri 16 1 something that might apply to 25. Also, at a time before it is 2 about to be implemented. So when you have some leisure, so you 3 would think that would be the ones that you would really want 4 to go over with a wire brush and apply the full treatment to.
5 MR. SilAPAR : The tough part about that problem, of 6 course, is it is so controversial. But the nice part about 7 that issue is that it is so easy to resolve because there are 8 only three directions you can head. Leave it alone with a 9 contract hearing, having something informal like we mentioned 10 here, or provide flexibility to decide what kind of a hearing 11 you are going to do in a spot. There really aren't any other 12 options. There is only three ways you can come out on that i 13 issue. And probably the most controversial of all, and everybody 14 has got strong views on it -- l 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But it i[eculiar, sir, to 16 back off on the one --
0 17 CHAIRMAN HEl(2fRIE: What you might want to consider 18 is that in the proceedings which would establish for a design 19 an agency approval, you might want to allow that to be fully 20 developed. The site hearing was what kind proposed under this --
21 MR. SHAPAR: The informal hearing on site approval.
A i 3 22 MR. KELLY: The Administration.
(5 23 CHAIRMAN HEN RIE: On the site approval.
L !
24 Ace Federce Report t
MR. KELLK: That is correct.
5, Inc.
25 MR. PEDERSdN: In fact, I would say, Commissioner i
59 jeri 17 1 Gilinsky, it's not peculiar at all if your objective is to 2 encourage people to go -- you have got to say what th'e objectives 3 are.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY : Well, no, I understand.
5 MR. PEDERS N: Okay, all right.
I 6 COMMISSIONER GILIF Y: But I think that, it seems 7 to apply with certain -- (inau ble).
8 MR. SHAPAR: I mean, one of.the objectives purportedly 9, of the bill is that you are go .g to help safety by getting 10 standardized designs. So if the argument is, if standardization.
II and early site reviews are a good thing, you need some induce-12 ment to get people to adopt these --
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY : But one of the ideals we 14 are always talking -- one of the reasons you get more safety l 15 in standardized designs is that people take a lot more care, 16 you know, by spreading the design, by citing the designer if it 17 is an overexpense. You can spend more money on the design.
18 A d f' , So it is a better design if you spend more money ie--tha.t. --
^
h 19 (-imauuible) . And it has been reviewed better because you can, 20 again, of course, spend more time reviewing it, spreading that 21 over a number of plants. And the same thing may apply to the 22 hearing.
23 So if you don't back off on the standards, just 24 like we wouldn't back off on the Staff Review, you increase ,
Are Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 the review; the review of the standardized design takes more i
I
60
'i 18 1 effort, as we saw the other day in the budget hearing. I would 2 think the same principle would apply to the hearings.
3 Also, since one is arguing this is something which 4 is being done well before it is about to be poured into cement, 5 one has the time to do it. So you can't make the argument that 6 you are in some kind of a rush.
7 MR. SHAPAR: That's a perfectly reasonable argument.
8 As a matter of fact, exactly the argument the Commission used 9 on its own bill two years ago, saying that they had not backed 10 of f the adjudicatory-type hearings because it was not going II to be in the critical path.
12 D
CHAIRMAN HENpRIE: I think -- I would love to argue 13 the merits of the incentives back and forth, it is very helpful I4 to do so. But maybe we ought to spot a couple of other --
2 ;
15 MR. PEDERSj6N : Yes, I was going to say, I have a 16 number of similar ones, but they will be in -- ;
17 D
CHAIRMAN HENORIE: You have made your point. Lee, 18 did you have anything?
I9 MR. GOSSICK: Yes.
O 20 CHAIRMAN HENgRIE: Shoot. Commissioners get 21 free copies at all times.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The same principle applies i
23 !
to general site review because, again, you are doing it 10 years.
l I
24 ahead of time, so what is the big deal. Now when you put them!
Ace ree,,s nmonen, inc.
5 '
together you can argue, having gone through this laborious i l
i
. . . 61 l jeri 19 1 process at the site some earlier time, having gone through this 2 tremendous review --
0 3 It ought to go fast.
CHAIRMAN HEN %RIE:
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It ought to go faster. But -
5' not --
P 6 I can see the advantage for doing CHAIRMAN HEN)2fRIE:
7 the design that way plus maybe you get a chance to exercise it 8 on a number of locations. I am not sure that -- if you do it 9 on the site, you may destroy any inclination of people to go 10 go from early sites, unless you provide other muscle --
II (Simultaneous voices. )
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: This bill makes that questioni f
I 13 academic anyway. !
I Id COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It applies to us to the site .
15 in the sense that the other one applies to any plants. But, f
16 again, I don't think you are particularly safe -- there is no l I'
17 time pressure here.
O
}8 CHAIRMAN HElidRIE: Lee, did you have anything you !
I9 wanted to pitch into the -- )
20 MR. GOSSICK: I don't think anything significant i 1
2I over what has been said here. I guess there is just one point i
22 on the matter of the DOE role in this interagency coordination.l l
23 Perhaps there is an opportunity in whatever input we can make I 24 l
into this bill to turn that slightly in the direction of where i Ace Fedevel Reporters, Inc.
I 25 we really could, I think, use some help,in going to one point l l
j 62 j eri 20 1 to get the other executive agencies, such as in the case of Seabrook you know, the EPA problem. I don't know whether 3 it wocid apply in a thing like Bailey, where we had a state 4 problem up there, but where we could perhaps get that kind of 5 clout from a central point on the other executive agencies, I 6 think it would have great merit.
7 CHAIRMAN HEN RIE: I must say when I read the bill, 8 while it didn't occur to me particularly coercive of NRC, I per-9 ceived this immediately and naturally as the white hats and 10 good. You know, now we are going to have help for clouting Il the rest of those delinquents into line.
Thatmaybeanaive-l'- )
l 12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You have a perception that is!
i3 somewhat different from the rest of the people in town about )
! l i
14 those agencies. j 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I hope somebody is going to l I I
16 address the question of whether coordination is a problem at i 17 this point. ,
18 MR. GOSSICK: Didn' t you say, Bob, get into this?
19 MR. RYAN: It may just come out the same way. We 20 talked about each agency establishing its own deadline and then 21 publishing its own --
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY : It is my impression there j 23 really are just a handful of agencies. ! l
\ l 24 MR. DIRCKS: That's right. I think we started l i
Are Federol Reportt es, Inc.
25 that dodce two or three years ago, energy regulatory studies, !
l i
1
____ . _ ___ __ _ _ __.._. _i
0 63 l eri 21 I as you pointed out, there were only major permits that had been l--
2 people had to get. It could be numbered in the range of 3 or 3 4, 4 MR. SHAPAR: So the ordinary case, but you can have 5 problems like 7 or 8 in an usual case.
6 MR. DIRCKS: Now you are talking about an FAA permit 7 for a tower.
B MR. SHAPAR: Like wild and scenic rivers and all 9 kinds of good stuff.
I 10 MR. SHAPAR: Sure, but there are always exceptions.
II D
These are federals, Bill? Who,
]3 CHAIRMANHEN[RIE:
12 are they? f f#
, 13 MR. DIRCKS: EPA permits,4 4i+enalbley, fish and ,
i Id wildlifecoordinationaef4"4c/t-i-es , which is not a permit, it is i 15 just a coordination function.
16 D '
CHAIRMANHEN[RIE: Who does the historical one?
17 MR. DIRCKS: That's the public -- that's really 18 sort of touching a base and going away with it. ,
0
% I9 CI! AIRMAN HE130RIE: National historic monuments.
20 MR. DIRCKS: Yes.
21 MR. SHAPAR: We have had a lot of enactments since 22 that time, f
l' 23 MR. DIRCKS: New statutes coming out at all times.
i 24
- ,er renersi senorices, inc.
(Simultaneous voices.)
g 25 CHAIRMAN HENdRIE: Is the bill -- does the bill giveI
d
' I
. . 64 "ri 22 1 DOE --
can they target the local and state permits?
2 MR. SHAPAR: Only to the extent that they want to 3 say something about it in the guidelines, which would be written.
4 They'could handle that in the guidelines.
D 5
CHAIRMANHENpRIE: But the legislation doesn't --
6 MR. SHAPAR: Give them authority to, settle this, 7 establish the guidelines. There is nothing specifics about;it 8 now in the legislation.
9 MR. PEDERS N: They are aiming a threat that DOE can 10 come in, though, and take over the process at any time, has an Il effect of setting a target --
I2 MR. SHAPAR: Yes, as a practical matter.
6 l MR. PEDERS%N: As a practical matter. I
@ 13
- i g Id MR. KELI gY : You know if any thoughts have been givenl 15 to trying to repeal this recent Clean Air Act or reverse it, f
f 16 while we are doing this?
l 1
I7 MR. SHAPAR: Yes.
5-I8 I say this half humorously, I know.we MR. KELgY:
19 just signed this thing.
20 MR. SHAPAR: Yes. What they did was to amend -- in the 21 Clean Air Act amendments, to indirectly amend the Atomic Energy i
22 ACt. !
// ,
23
)/tsst'44MO l
-VOIC". "o reason why in the Atomic Energy Act we !
24 Of course, the can't indirectly reamend the Clean Air Act. , i no Federal Fleporters, Inc. 1 I
25 politics of that need to be evaluated rather meticulously. l 1
1 i i
65 8
eri 23 31 MR. KELgY: Yes, I realize that. But I just --
2 (Simultaneous voices.)
D
{p3 CHAIRMAN HEN,dRIE: Yes, that is going to be one of 4 my nudges at people along the line.
5 Let's see, Bill, did you have other comments? Lee, 6 did you have anything else?
7 MR. GOSSICK: No, I think that is all.
D 38 CHAIRMAN HEN,$RIE: You already had ample opportunity.
f b9 MR. PEDER$1: = Yes, I have spoken too much as a matter of I
10 fact.
II MR. DIRCKS: I provided Lee with some comments and 12 I guess he will be providing them to you, Mr. Chairman. I 13 think my main thesis was there are good things in the bill; like 14 early site review and standardized plan. There is an awful lot l 15 of other baggage that is attached to the bill, the benefits of l 16 which I think need to be analyzed.to see whether there are 17 benefits and to see what impediments there might be to getting 18 the good things out of the bill.
I9 I have real problems with the DOE coordination, the 20 DOE guidelines thing, and the hearing process, which I think 21 will attract an awful lot of opposition. We may lose the bill 22 and lose the early site review. !
j3 23 CHAIRMAN HEN,0RIE : You had a chance. f'
- 2d MR. DIRCKS: I just want to make one point, !
- Ace.Fecteral Reporters, Inc.
25 Mr. Chairman, if I may, on coordination. The National t i t
66 jeri 24 I Governor's Conference, with whom we conducted our study across 2
associations, should be ready.
3 I've recommended a higher level of federal coordina-4 tion; tha t is , coordination on or between federal agencies.
5 And also for their own sake, government's sake, recommended 6
that the states adopt coordinated siting facilities legislation.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Is not the legislation aimed 8
in the last analysis at a one-stop operation in the states? Yet 9
it does not have the forthrightness to step forward and say 10 that is what ought to be done in the Federal Government.
It's (
impolitic to do this to the Federal Government, but it is l I
certainly politic to tell the states you have to. !
1 13 MR. SHAPAR: Some states, of course, have already l l
I#
done --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That makes no sense to me, i
16 MR. SHAPAR: Except that some states have already '
I7 done it.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Something the Federal Govern-19 ment has been unable to do.
20 MR. SHAPAR: Correct.
2I CHAIRMAN HEN RIE: Well, it may not make sense, but 22 they aren't surprised.
ggg'iss/04ELfgf) PED /3 g 23 "OICE: Oh, I guess I am.
y, y t?. .SH APN2 l
.)
tce Fe@ral Resx ters, Inc. WI-GE :4 Well, politics is the art of the possible. I 25 D CHAIRMAN HEN @RIE: Let's see, are there other l
I 67 jeri 25 1 comments from that sector of the room? Anybody like to pitch 2 anything in?
3 Starting on the left, what have you got to say?
D 4 MR. PEDERS;N: I only was going to try to exercise 5 the prerogative to leap in because it follows up on something 6 I think in our comments we had an analogy concerned Lee said.
7 with criticizing or applauding what is in here. I have been 8 thinking about possible alternative, courses of action. For #
9 example, I could see a role for DOE here somewhat analogous to 10 4
the role State has on export licensing process, in which DOE II would be responsible for coordinating Executive Branch involve-l 1
i 12 ments. But it would be directly analogous to the kind of I3 situation we have in export licensing; it is a halfway house.
Id It doesn' t have them controlling uc or setting targets for us, 1 l I
15 but it makes sure that other members of the Executive Branch, l.
16 other agencies are timely and coordinated and so on.
I7 It seems to me we ought to be considering possible 18 alternative courses of action here rather than --
19 (Simultaneous voices.)
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: FDA was trying to trying to 1
2I do this for a while, j g , ,
22
"[3 MR. PEDERS%N: Oh, yes, they have been trying to do l I l
23 that for eons. I l
24 MR. DIRCKS: I think the analogy phase now though i )
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 is a domestic thing because you give an EPA, which is an 1
! l l
l l
- , a l 68 jeri 26 I independent regulatory agency, one part of it, and I think 2 coordinating their comments might jeopardize their credibility 3 as well as coordinating our comments.
Q pg.fgD6fSEd:
J4 VGIGE: Are they completely independent?
nn plg D1RCWGl W5 MIGB: Yes.
6 MR. SHAPAR: I might point out that this particular 7 position has appeared under four Administrations, same essential 8 revision, and the comments from this agency have been both for 9 it and against it in the past. That's only by way of back- t I
l 10 ground. l D
D II CHAIRMAN HENfRIE: It seems to me there would be a 12 nice clear field of maneuver. Let's see, Al? I want to hear l 13 from you and Jim, and then anybody else over here that would ,
i Id like to comment. !
The r. we will quit.
15 MR. ROSI T..'HAL : Well, I will basically redule my 16 comments to writing within the next week, but I might just say 17 by way of summary, I have the gravest reservations about the l 18 l l elimination of the adjudicatory criteria. I think, among other l I9 things, as a final analysis, it will contribute to rather than j 1
20 reduce delay. I think beyond prevention. Unless judicial l 21 review of licensing decisions is eliminated. !
22 I don't think that is in prospect. That the courts ;
i 23 will inject themselves to a much greater extent inourlicensing!
24
, decisions if those decisions are based upon the kind of legis- l Ace -Federol Reporters, Inc.
I 25 lative criteria that is being proposed. I might say in that ,
l i
l
1 j
- 69 jeri 27 1 connection, I draw, not little, but no comfort from the fact 2 that participants would be given an opportunity to pose ques-3 tions through the Board to other participants. I think, in 4 4 candor, that is a total sham. I think in the context of an 5' individual licensing proceeding, it is holding out a worthless 6 remedy. That I feel extremely strongly about, is that this 1
7 change from the old NRC bill eliminating the adjudicatory-type 8 hearings was a grievous mistake.
Beyo b that, 9 I think it is mentioned by both 6
10 Commission Gilinsky and Commissioner Kennedy, there is a serious 11 problem, as I see it, associated with the turning over to the 12 states of the environmental review. That problem stems from 13 the fact, as this whole Commission has pointed out, in a number i
14 of instances you will have an reactor close to a sude boundary l 15 where there is, to put it mildly, a strong disagreement between 16 the two states over the desirability, recently from an environ-1 17 mental standpoint, of the reactors. '
18 Marble Hill is a perfect example of that. Marble 19 Hill reactor is physically situatcd in the State of Indiana; 20 it's very close to the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and ast I 21 understand it, Mr. Yore, perhaps as that case is still in l l
21 Licensing Board level, could provide greater 6- As I 23 understand it, it is almost a Hatfield and situation.
24 And federal guidelines though there may be, it ruawere Reporters, ine.
f 25' seems to me that that portends of considerable mischief, turning 1
i 1
- , , t 70 eri 28 1 over in a situation 1 , the environmental review to the states.
2 In terms of the DOE role, I would have to say 3 broadly, although it doesn' t af fect, I suppose, my particular 4 area of operation, that this sou;.ds to me like a surrender of 5 the NRC to the DOE. I find it incomprehensible. I can't under-6 stand how the thought that the NRC would be carrying forward 7
as an independent regulatory body in circumstances where timing 8 of decisions of decision are being mdde by DOE. And I don't 9
care whether they are binding or not, because if the guidelines l
10 are being provided by DOE and we do not meet then, I can see l II this being brought to the Hill as an example of how this !
l 12 Commission is involved in deletory action. !
13 l And I might say just one further thing in that 1 i
I4 context. That I would strongly object to the DOE on an I 15 advisory basis, or otherwise, attempting to dictate the timing 16 of adjudicatory decisions in this Commission. And as I read l
17 this bill, I don' t see that adjudicatory decisions are excluded, '
18 indeed it seems to me it is a fair reading they are included. j l
I9 And I think that that is, again, of course, mischief.
20 Because if, particularly, some outside body ctarts i i
21 i to impose those kinds of constraints on the timing ,of decisions, !
i 22 I think the result is inevitably going to be decisions, in many 23 instances, which are hardly produced and which will readily find!
I 24 themselves on the judicial rock. And that is going to save Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc, i
25 nobody anything in the way of time. ;
l
- . . f 71 l jeri 29 1 So this is basically my problem with this bill.
2 And as I said, Mr. Chairman, I will reduce this to writing.
3 CHAIRMAN HEt RIE: Jim?
Yot a )
MR. HELLY. We have discussed this, Al and I,
- f. 4 ,
5' briefly, and we concur in the statements which he has made and 6 we will reduce it to writing with him.
7 I think the one point I would like to emphasis is 1 8 this: No matter what we do here, this type of legislation --
,f9 fafinaudibleT
- a. 5 N l h cc can always go to court. And how would the 10 agency look in court based upon what rules and regulations we 1
II adopt.
12 M 1 CHAIRMAN HENfRIE: Well, let's see, somebody can -- l 13 the assorted legal talents present can help me out. *he Act f Id itself might be vulnerable to a charge of unconstitutionality, I 15 right?
16 Lacking tha , if the legislation -- the law says 1 I7 do the hearing this way and we do the hearing that way, what is I a 1
18 the vulnerability --
h I9 MR. KEL Y: I don't think any of us have raised 20 the constitutional issue. I have not.
21 MR. YORE: I have not.
l !
E : i 5 22 MR. PEDERSJ6N: I have not. l [
f323 MR. KEL : Write this bill the way you want to write it. i !
4e Federal Reporters, Inc, '
25 (Simultaneous voices.) l l
s i
- 72 D
jeri 30 21 CHAIRMAN HENpRIE: Well, suppose the legislation 2 says do a certain kind of hearing the limited way, the legisla-3 tive way, and we proceed to do that, I don't understand the 4 source of your feeling, A1, that there is a much increased 5 vulnerability to judicial reversal.
6 MR. ROSENTHAL: It would not at all be a judicial 7 reversal on the basis that what the Commission did was uncon-B stitutional or in nonconformity with statute. My concern is 9 di ff erent .
10 That is, at this point, when a petition for review II is filed in the Court of Appeals from a decision on the 12 licensing of a reactor, the Court of Appeals gets this case 13 with a full record of circumstances, where the participants 14 have been given full rights of participation, they have been l 15 he right of discovery, they have been given the right to l l
16 present their own evidence, they have been given the right to l l
17 cross-examine witnesses presented by other participants.
18 I think in those circumstances, courts are generally I9 inclined, particularly on factual matters, technical matters, 20 to defer to the judgment of the agency.
21 My concern is that if it is a le islative typ , ,
t W an v'y f
$ 22 hearing, the court obviously will not hold that - (inaudiolej --
0 i
23 type of hearings that the agency v.tolated a statutory requirement.
24 -- certain what might be described I think that the court Ace' Federal Reporters, Inc. !
25 as activist judges, particularly in this Court of Appeals here, l
i
~
- 73 I ari 31 1 might be much more prone to substitute their judgments on the 2 issues, on the merits that are presented on the issues in the 3 case than they would be in the circumstances where the case 4 comes to them following a full adjudicatory hearing.
5 MR. SHAPAR: Of course, there are a number of many 6 other statutes that don't require an adjudicatory hearing and 7 I suppose one could take rather quick look to find out if the 8 reversal rate is any greater where an adjudicatory hearing is 9 not required than where one is required.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: One would have to go farther II than that.
6 MR. KELLY: The classic example of that is the
/3 12 13 F-3. There you have an perfectly legitimate type of proceeding,,
Id but the record was incomplete and the courts -- ,
15 Because the court considered COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
16 it incomplete.
I7 MR. SHAPAR: I don't think that is a very good 18 example, in my opinion, because there the law is changing on s;
l9 what is required over and above the A as far as rulemaking 20 is concerned. This particular statute would specifically 21 provide the kind of hearing that is required. All that would 22 leave the court is whether or not the proffer is any good.
}g 23 CHAIRMAN HEN,RIE: It appears to be me that if we i
2d went in that direction, it would certainly then be incumbent l Ace-FMerst Rewrters. Inc. ,
25 on the hearing board and the appeal board on looking over the '
l
74 r jeri32 1 record to be extremely careful that there was a really decent i 2 record developed. I suppose you still have an area of -- a 3
gray area in terms of what it might take in those circumstances 4
to fully satisfy the appeals court that everything that should 5!
be looked at had been looked had been looked at, which gray 6
area might not arise so clearly if there had been full rights 7
of discovery and cross-examination for parties involved. I 8 agree.
}
9 But it does seem to me that if a pretty decent .
10 record is developed in a case, it's not so clear to me that l II it would necessarily be that situation.
l I2 t g Okay, let's quite. Let me leave you with the !
13 following thought in terms of looking at this legislation. '
Id We are, indeed, by statute and pronouncement, an independent 15 regulatory agency. Let me suggest, however, we are not completely 16 severed and a sovereign state independent of the United States '
I7 of America. The President has made it a strong part of his ;
I8 i policy to go forward with some improvements, as he sees them, l I9 in the licensing process for nuclear power plants.
20 I trust that our comments will be directed, not at I i
21 carping because the Administration has put together a draft bill i
22 for this purpose, rather than ourselves, not in a sense, boy, ,
23 wha t are you doing in our backyard there, fellow, but rather --
1 24 Ace Federal Reporters, Inc. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That is an interesting question.
D \
3 25 CHAIRMAN HEN $RIE: Well, it seems to me that the
- . . 75 jeri 23 1 President has the prerogative to do this. It is part of this 2 program and I find -- i 33 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Sogfpresidentshavefelt 4 it appropriate to ask the agencies most involved to go ahead 5 ,and do it.
O 36 CHAIRMAN HENgRIE: The President now, Dick --
- 7 The Department of Energy --
8 (Simultaneous voices.)
O 9
CHAIRMAN HEt36RIE: It seems that I judge in a some-10 what different f ashion than other Administrations have and I 11 regard that as their prerogative to do so. I think indeed i
12 there is an opportunity that the momentum in national affairs i i
I l i
13 and the points of view are as good at the present time to make 14 some improvements in this awkward process as they have been in j 15 many years and as they are likely to be for some years to come.
I 16 I think indeed the comment that the window is not l l l 17 wide are correct in my view. And I urge then that your comments l l
18 be, as has been noted here, in the direction of trying to make l
19 our best efforts to make positive and helpful suggestions to l 20 this legislative direction rather than just simply negative ones; 21 that this is -- effort ought to be turned off and we just 22 ought to sit on top dead center. Because, indeed, either 23 this effort as duly amended, contributed to by us and all the !
24 others who add input, goes forward or we will stay, in fact, on!
p+r.o.,.inenorieri,inc.
25 top dead center with the present system for the foreseeable I
)
- il j 76 l l
jeri 34 1 future, in my view.
2 Constructive criticism input.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What is the status of the 4 study?
4 5 CHAIRMAN HEl RIE: Which one?
6 (Simultaneous voices. )
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Department of Energy. The B
President said he was going to have -- at least in the statement 9
contained -- promised to do a thorough study of the licensing ;
i 10 process -- (inaudible). j
(/ II CHAIRMAN HEN RIE: I wouldn't be surprised what 12 the Office of the President believes that they have conducted 13 this study. The draft in hand is a product of that study. And Id I must say I don't feel it is my prerogative to tell 1600 f
15 Pennsylvania that he is offbase or his staff is offbase. !
I I0 We take what we have in hand and try and take a I7 positive attitude on it. Move forward and make it better in 18 cases where we think that it has got problems, where it may lead us into difficulties.
20 I Although I engage it, I am sorry to say, a good l 21 deal myself, we often regard our fellow agencies in the !
22 federal system more as competitors than as fellow employees 4
23 of the taxpayers' in a collective sense. '
l 24 '
Thank you very much.
,c e-Faletal Retorters, Inc.
25 IVl2. CSIRblU '"
A Under our Sunshine regulations, at the end of each
[
77 ;
cri 35 1 meeting, we are to make a report on what recommended be done 2 with the transcript. In this case, I believe that all except 3 minor portions of the discussions were part of formulation of 4 confidential views on the Administration bill, views which were l
5 requested in confidence. And thus pursuant -- they fall well i I
6l within one of the exemptions recognized in our regulations and 7 the Act for documents that may be withheld under Ex,em tion _ (b),
b 8+ f5 h 44u.W g8 the significant frustration exemption -- (incudible).- <
9 So I would recommend that this transcript be with-10 held from the public disclosure as permitted under our regula- l 1
Il tions and I will ask for your vote in this connection.
i 12 (Simultaneous voices.) 1 JM3 CHAIRMAN HEN RIE: I think the basis on which I Id invited people to come here and speak frankly was one in which 15 I contemplated a closed meeting.
j 16 N'3LCD:
48 We voted to close it earlier.
I7 (Whereupon, the hearing was concluded at 3:45 p.m.)
end j l
18 19 20 21 22 23 i 24 A tr Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 I
.