ML20148T637
| ML20148T637 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/07/1977 |
| From: | Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148T623 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7812050364 | |
| Download: ML20148T637 (91) | |
Text
,
0
' Transcript of Proceedings UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Commissiott Meeting Sunshina Act l
C LICENSING REFORM
\\
Washington, D.C.
7 September 1977 i
ACE -FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 x
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE. DAILY N 'ohon*:
(202)347 3700 NOTE:
The initials appearing in the lef thand margin indicating corrections 7812050 %4 i.e.,
J.B.,
are those of Jake Brown Office of the Secretary.
Reviewed 11/9/78
1 cr4742 3
MELTZER/mm UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 DISCUSSION OF DRAFT ADMINISTRATION BILL FOR NUCLEAR PLANT LICENSING REFORM COMMISSION MEETING
~
8 SUNSHINE ACT 9
10 Room 1130 3) 1717 H Street NW Washington, D.C.
12 Wednesday, 7 September 19'ii 13 14 Meeting of the Commission was convened at 2: 30 p.m.,
15 CHAIRMAN JOSEPH M.
HENDRIE, Presiding.
16 Commission Members present:
17 JOSEPH M.
HENDRIE, CHAIRMAN 18 VICTOR GILINSKY, COMMISSIONER PETER A. BRADFORD, COMMISSIONER j9
- ' E '"
- 20 JOHN HOYLE 21 J.
KELLEY q
W.
PEDERSEN g
H.
SHAPAR 23 L. V. GOSSICK SCH 24 Aes Fedtral Reporters, Inc.
25
2
]
I AELTZER/mm P_ R,0,C_ E_ E,D_ I_ N,G_ S_
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We will now start this meeting, 3
which is on the draft licensing bill, a continuation of a series 4
of meetings on-the draft licensing bill.
S We have the newest document in this round, which I 6
will discuss in a minute.
i 7
Before we discuss that, there is a lawsuit -- there 8
was a thing forwarded to you from William Fisher at FEA, which 9
was a draft of an issue paper on the effects of the Clean Air 10 Act Amendment, Section 122 on Standardization and Plant 11 Licensing and so on.
It is sort of Draft 2.
We had Draft 1, 12 now we have Draft 2, 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: We do?
Id CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
If you have a thing like 15 tha t, that is Draf t 2 --(Indicating. )
6 We are not going to discuss it Peter.
I just wanted I7 to bring you up to date on where it is.
And that one is 18 Draft 1.
You now have Draft 2, which is very similar, 20 except they take a little clearer notice at my prompting --
21 MR. KELLEY:
That is Draft 2, that is the one that 22 came in on the 6th wanting comments on the 6th.
23 MR. GOSSICK: Dated the 2nd?
MR.KELLEY:
The 6th, quick turnaround.
Aes Fedtret Reporters, Inc.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The cover note is dated the 6th,
3 I
the internal thing is dated 9/2.
MR. GOSSICK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
My comment is, A,
the only 1
4 difference between Draft 1 and 2 there is that they took, at 5
my urging, they called up and said, what do you think of 6
that, and I gave them an offhand opinion.
7 They were a little clearer that in fact there is --
8 the Clean Air Act Amendment does establish overlapping and 9
duplicate areas of responsibility between ourselves and EPA.
10 And, what else?
There may have been another minor, 11 but not substantitve change.
I should also report to you that I went over, 13 yesterday afternoon, at their urging to meet with O' Leary N
and Mr.Hanfling, who is one of O' Leary's assistants, John fh&
, 35 J
-Ahearn was there, and a couple of other people in Fisher's operation, that is FEA staff, to discuss further where this 17 ought to go, if anyplace.
18 Also, they were concerned -- they had heard about i
19 NRC Draft 1 and were rather concerned that the Commission was l
l 20 about to charge forth with its own bill in comoetition with l
I 21 l
theirs.
A race to the Congress, first bill takes all or t-22 I
whatever.
l So I felt that you wouldn't mind if I went over and I 24 Aes Fsd:rcl Reporters, Inc.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Where did they get that
j 4
1 impression?
i 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, it is sort of a natural 1
3 assumption.
4 And I pointed out that we were devising this thing 5
as a way of focusing the Commission's attention about specific 6
provisions that it would like to see in, and specific provisions 7
it would like to see out, and then we could compare with the 8
Administrat' ion drafts, and hopefully come to a common draft 9
which the Administration will present to the Congress as soon C
10 as we can all get our thoughts collecte d on it.
7 Il So I wanted simply to report that I had been there.
12 On the Clean Air Act Amendment --
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Did you calm them?
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Oh, thev weren ' t verv excited 15 about it -They were colitely curious as to whether we were 16 in comoetition to oroduce a bill here,and were cleased that
,chh. Ems) 3 17 I ca-limed we weren' t.
18 I think they have enough trouble pulling things 19 together without having to fight off an NRC proposal that would 20 sort of parallel theirs _on its way to Congress.
I think that 21 would be a very unfortunate aspect.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You assured them, I hope, mosd of 23 us -- I can't imagine any one of us had any such intents.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And O' Leary and I worked together
. Ac Fedsrci neporters, Inc.
25 for a while, and we got along fairly well.
e
)
j 5
4 e
j i
f' I
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What about the Clean Air Act?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
On the Clean Air Act, I think l
it is in their minds a question of whether they want to go j
5 forward with this issue paper at this time and push to see --
6 because the thrust of this paper, you know there are three 7
options presented, but the option clearly that they recommend i
f and say so,-is to go forward and undo the Clean Air Amendment 8
in the Licensing Reform Bill.
And I think there is a clear 10 j
question whether that is the proper strategy at this point, i
11 J
and they'are trying to assess that.
i 12 And so this is now, I think, on hold as a draft 1
4 13
{
issue paper pending consideration by older and wiser heads 14 over there in the Administration on whether this is the proper 15 time to make it final and pass it around all the places' it i
a 16 hao to be passed, and try to do it, j
- Now, whether or not we wanted in terms -- to 18 recommend the provisions of the Clean Air Act, or in terms of 19 i
our considering that, is completely open. We are free to do 20 that or not, as we choose.
21 Okay.
Too much time on the progress report.
22 Now, let's turn to the latest product of our 23 champion draf ter, who has produced in very rapid time, NRC 1.
q l
24 Ace Fedtral Reporters, Inc.
Y Plan B, they are crossing the Rhine, pull out plan B-1.
6 1
MR. SHAPAR:
I have a feeling you are all getting 2
very close.
3 (Laughter.)
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't we start down this thing, 5
taking note of comments by Commissioners and others.
I thought it came out pretty well. You oupEid your-L
,6 7
self.
8 MR. SHAPAR:
Mr. Malsch deserves all the credit.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I was just going to ask, on the 10 assumption that you were away over the Labor Day holiday, who 11 is the author of the document 3was my next question.
}:$
12 (Laughter.)
13 Good work, Marty.
14 MR. MALSCH: Thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see, attachment A, pages 16 1,
2 and 3 are a set of findings and purposes.
17 MR. SHAPAR:
I might say in connection with that, 18 these are not the Administration's findings.
19 During one of the earlier discussions, I think 20 there was fairly obvious sentiment on the part of the Commissioner 21 who addressed the matter, that they thought the findings were 22 perhaps too loaded in terms of timing, a nd not enough recogni-23 tion of the environment and safety.
24 So one option is to have no findings at all.
6 FMIts Rnmnen, inc.
l 25 These findings, as I just indicated, are not the Administration!'s
o 7
I findings.
They have been redrafted to provide a greater 2
balaace.
3 So I guess there are two questions you might have d
in considering this:
5 Number one, whether you want any findings at all.
6 And if you do, do these satisfy you?
a7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would for myself
--I am g
8 very -- I think a set of findings are very useful.
We will 9
be able to use one or another of a set of findings from this 10 bill, if it is passed, as themes for speeches for years to come.
12 (Laughter.)
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Precisely.
Id CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So, I am all for it.
It is a 15 nice keynote line, you know, like a line from the bible to I0 start the sermon.
I7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I am told that one of the 18 reasons they have been redrafted in this particular language I9 format is because not only is there a shelf full of draft 20 bills, but also there is a shelf full of draft speeches, one 21 for each finding.
22 (Laughter.)
23 MR. SHAPAR: That, I think, approaches hyperbole.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Wonderful.
I look forward to Aca4edorst Resx>rters, Inc, l
25 giving a fair share of them.
l
8 I
MR. SRAPAR:
I should point out there was a legal 2
reason for the findings, and we attempted in the earlier 3
draft to preempt the states as far as environmental review d
is concerned.
There was a legal requirement to have some 5
findings to support that sort of preemptive action.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well recognizing that by the time 7
we get through arguing back and forth outside the Commission, 8
you know, suppose we agree on sort of, that this is getting 9
good enough to talk to some people about, or some cut of this 10 is getting good enough to talk about, they will come back and 11 d
3 say, wait a minute, we want to argue with you e-ieut this.
So I think that although at the moment the thing I3 does not preempt the states in that sense, that doesn't 14 mean that what -
is presented to the Congress eventually in 15 the Administration Bill, may not go back to one of the origi-16 nal lines, in which case I think the findings, including your I7 amended ones make the needed point, right?
O MR. SHAPAR: Right.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The only finding that I found' 20 neglected in here, and it may be a little self-serving in 21 our draft, is the one that it is in the national interest "9
that NRC continue to exercise its functions and so on end I
23 so on.
24 Is that of interest to people?'
l
. Ace Fedsret Reporters, Inc.
2S Does anybody feel the need?
2
I g
1 MR. PEDERSEN :
There continue to be an NRC?
2 (Laugher.)
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If it is the finding of Congress 4j that the NRC and all its principal of ficers continue --
5 MR. PEDE RSEN:
It is what is known as a survival 6
clause.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
For whatever interest it may 8,
be, I am sure that each of you received a copy of the same 9
letter that I received a copy of, from Mr. McGill, Vice 10 President of Combustion Engineering, Inc., who notes:
II "We are concerned with Item 10 of Section 2(a),
12 Findings and Purposes, which states:"
13 And further internal quote:
14
.It is in the national interest that the Nuclear 15 Regulatory Commission continue to exercise its 16 statutory functions for the protection of the 17 public's health and safety in common with the 18 national security and the environment."
19 And the reason for all of this is explained in 20 some length in his letter, was precisely because:
21 "This will only solidify the basis, which 22 has produced a regulatory process that proceeds without 23 defining safety goals or decisionmaking criteria, 24 and which as a result spends government and industry Ace Feditel Reporters, Inc.
25 resources in a manner which fails to properly serve i
I
10 q
1 the public interest."
2 I just thought it would be interesting, in_ light i
3 of your comment that we ought to add it back in.
That is 4
another view.
i 5
(Laughter.)
i.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are we going over this line f
7 by line and page by page?
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
~
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Howard, in the beginning l
10 you say, the Congress recognizing the need for a clear and i
11 coordinated energy policy consisting of sound environmental l
12 controls -- why do you single out environmental controls 13 as opposed, say, to safety?
14 MR. SHAPAR: We get to safety later.
It easily 15 could go in there, too.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would think that safety 17 really stands, at least on a par, if not above.
18 MR. SHAPAR: Okay.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Coordinated energy policy l
20 consistent with -- get safety in there and then go -- and 21 sound e nvironmental -- c '. 2y?
22 Why don' t ' e leave the specific language to w
23 Marty, if not Howard.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is there a reason on the ice Fedual Recorters, inc, 25 bottom of page 2, that instead of speaking of the need for t
11 1
nuclear power reactors?
2 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
A technical reason.
3 If you'use need for power, it may be too narrow, because some pimits for example, may sell processed steam, and 5
then you may also have replacement plants, because they are 6
growing old.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why don't you just sa; t:he 8
need for heat.
9 MR. SHAPAR:
I am trying to make it as broad as 10 possible.
It may not just be power, it may be processed 11 s te am.
And, for example, if a breeder was --
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is anybody going to build a 13 nuclear power plant to sell processed steam?
14 MR. SHAPAR:
Whd: about the breeder?
15 The main purpose of that plant is not power.
16 MR. KELLEY: That is a subsidiary purpose in the 17 Midland proceeding, which I think is kind of a --
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I realize that, but you did make 19 the point.
Subsidiary means --
20 MR. KELLEY:
It is subsidiary.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In principle.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What do we mean when we say 23 we are asking the state to make determinations as to the 24 need for nuclear power reactors?
f
- Am.Feu.i nnet.n. ine.
25 That is a very large set of issues.
12 i
i 1
MR. SHAPAR:
What the plant is needed for, l
2 whatever purpose.
And 99 out of 100 would be power.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Howard, why are you troubled e
l 4
by --
5 MR. SHAPAR: I'm sorry?
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why are you troubled by 9
]
7 nuclear. power?
i 8
MR. SHAPAR:
Because if you put it in terms of NEPA, 9
what we are talking about ' essentially is need for power.
10 j
The technical answer, why we don't use the phrase need for Il power is because in some few instances it may not be the power i
12 that is the driving force. It may be the selling of processed 13 steam.
i Id COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well that is no problem.
1 15 MR. DENTON: There is one other point in there --
i l
16 MR. S HAPAR:
Also, the breeder.
l 17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I mean you are distinguishing i
18 between power and electrical power.
i 19 MR. SHAPAR:
I am trying to come up with a term 20 that will be broad enough to include need for power, need a
21 for processed steam, need for demonstration.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The colloquialism need for power 23 has so far been used pretty exclusively to mean electric l
24 power.
sce Fedtral Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, we have gotten into l
i.
7 7e.--+.e-
-.e mm
-r--
y w
i e-
= + - + - -
d
- - ~ ~ * " - - ' " " ~ * " - + ' " "
i 13 I
1 proceedings where other kinds of power --
l 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Just so.
Well, Howard wants this 3
written so that it is broad enough and I think that is fair, i
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well it is broad enough now l
l 5
to require the state, it seems to me to suggest that the state l
6 shall now determine whether, indeed there should be -- one of 7
the decisions it is going.to have to make is not only a
i 8
whether it needs power, and we use that to whatever scope we 9
want, but also whether it should be this particular kind of 1
]
10 a plant as distinguished from all others.
n 11 Is that what we are asking them to do?
3 i
12 MR.SHAPAR:
We are asking them to decide that a i
i 13 particular plant is needed.
That was the intent of this.
14 j
COMMI!if IONER GILINSKY:
Are we asking them to 15 decide whether tney need a nuclear power plant?
16 l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is what it says.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why are we asking them --
l 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They need power.
19 MR. PEDERSEN:
This gets them into choosing between 20 alternative energy sources.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Because at the present time we 22 get involved in the determination, both that the electricity 23 is needed,and secondly.that a nuclear power plant is the right 24 way at this time on this site to provide the electrical power.
Aes Fedsrsi bporters, Inc.
25 And both of those elements are part of the need fo-l
14 I
power determination.
2 We now make the determination in the sense that we 3
attempt to show in our Environmental Impact Statement that 4
there is a need for the electricity, and that nuclear is good 5
if not better, than any other way to get the electricity.
6 And that establishes the benefit side of the 7
equation.
8 Right?
9 MR. SHAPAR:
Right. I think --
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We are just saying, let the 11 states do that.
12 MR.SHAPAR:
I think that the problem, though, 13 which I think is a drafting problem, could be easily solved 14 by simply saying that determinations respecting the need 15 for the plant be made by the competent state authorities. That 16 would solve that very nicely.
17 MR. MALSCH:
Or need for individual nuclear power 18 reactors.
19 MR. SHAPAR:
Or need for the plant -- (Inaudib2e.)
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And what would you do in 21 the case of, say, Clinch River, or whateve r it is, to be 22 continued?
23 MR, SHAPAR: The need for the,
.it and need for I
24 power is a shorthand way of saying the plus side of the plus-AimFctest Resmtm, Inc.
25 benefit equation.
l i
15 i
1 Any plc. that you build has adverse, or has 2
environmental impacts, and in order to form your cost-benefit t
3 balance, you have to decide why the plus side of the equation 4
overbalances the minus.
5 And for a typical case, the only plus side of the equation is the need.for power, the power produced by the plant.
7 MR. CASE:
The need for Clinch River was based on i
the part of the program, to fill information requirements.
9 That is the need.
i 10 1
COMMISSIONER GILINCKY: You say you would not have
^
11 the State of Tennessee make that determination?
I am just 12 j
trying to understand how that would work there.
I 13 MR. CASE: Yes.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Oh, you would.
The State 16 of Tennessee would decide whether or not Clinch River ought to be sited?
18 MR. SHAPAR: To the extent that the state had the 19 authority to look at this matter.
20 You knoy this is purely --
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Clinch River -- I'm with 22 you.
A decision to go ahead with Clinch River would-24 not be made on the basis of power, or certainly not power Aes Fedstat Reporters, Inc, 25 alone.
It is a demonstration project to find out whether
16 this kind of device will produce power in some economic way.
j MR. SHAPAR:
Precisely.
2
- ' " Y*U 3
State of Tennessee be asked to make a determination whether g
Clinch River should go ahead, or whether there was a need for 5
it?
6 MR. SHAPAR: That was only intended to be illustrative.
7 The only illustration I was trying to make was that 8
in some cases power alone would not be the only plus side of 9
the equation. The other example I gave was processed steam in 10 Midland.
jj MR. KELLEY:
I think an issue of magnitude, I am 12 13 qu e sure, fa eeder, would be dealt with in a specific subsequent statute.
Or easily could be.
ja MR. SHAPAR:
If we use need for power, we rlalized 15 immediately in some cases it would be worded too narrowly.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And could the state -- I 37 guess this is getting ahead of ourselves -- can the state 18 j9 rethink its position on the need for power, or having once made that decision, they are stuck with it?
20 MR. SHAPAR: Well, the concept of this statute is 21 that they make a timely decision.
We have got the word timely 22 in there, on the need for power, need for plant.
We are bound 23 by the statute to accept it.
f l
ace-Feditcl Re 9;,, in,
Now I guess if the their mind before--
i l
v
~
4 17 j
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What does timely mean?
i j
2 Presumably you would want them to make be decision 3
as Jate as possible consistent with construction of the plant.
i 1,
4 MR. SHAPAR:
Timely means in time for us to use it, t
a j
S I guess.
i l
6 MR. PEDERSEN: Even in the case of an early site 1
l 7
review, ten years before the plant might be built?
l 8
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You don't deal with a specific i
9 plant.in an early site review.
j 10 MR. PEDERSEN:
No, no. But this timely,.if you are II l
going to have an early site review, is the determination of 12 need for power going to remain there?
l 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I rule the discussion out of 1
14 o rde r.
j 15 You know, deep ii. the document you come to the i-j 16 details of the case of state NEPA considerations and how we 17 propose to deal with these.
Okay?
18 The point here is, I think the language that Howard 19 is using is properly broad to allow the processes to be 20 included.
It says it is a fP; ding of the Congress that the 21 states are in a better position on balance to make a need for 22 power determination, and in our case,'the nuclear 23 power plants, than other people.
And such determination l
24 shouldn't be duplicated by the Feds, co Fsdsrci Amitters, Inc.
25 And I think the language is okay.
'l 4
18 1
I take it nobody felt a strong need to get back in 2
the national' interest that the NRC do its duty?
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I didn't realize 4
what was left out here.
5 Is this something that is close to your heart?
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, I just wondered about it 7
because it was not in Draft 1, and we muttered about it and so
. 4tnAs 8
and his friends put it in Draft 2, and we have omitted s
9 it from our draft.
So I think that is an interesting cycle 10 that we have gone through.
Il COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why shouldn't we have it?
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I thought it was great, especially 13 considering that although this bill will talk about coordination I4 in the way that we said last time, in a very mild NRC-coordinated 15 fashion, it is clear from brief discussion yesterday afternoon 16 over on the other side, that they are going to continue to 17 regard DOE as the right fellows to drive some of this.
18 They are willing to allow us to set down a schedule i
19 and sort of come in and put down ours on a blank paper. They 20 will configure around it.
But they continue t3 feel that DOE 21 is the right fellow to, you know, be nasty to people.
22 So you might like to have this back in the findings 23 in that case.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I.think it is rather nice.
. Aco Fedual Reporters, Inc.
25 I think it would be nice to stick in the word independent.
l
19 1
(Laughter.)
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I think it should be stuck in l
3 and underlined.
f a
i 4
MR. KELLEY:
Do the people they are going to be 2
5 nasty to, include us?
i 6
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think once we have said, now 1
37 here is the schedule we are going to do this application on, l
8 then just like the original intent, they would hope to be a i
9 little nasty to us too if we breached. After all, there is not 10 much point in coordinating the heck out of the Department of 11 Interior, who do a little piece of the job, if the NRC with J
12 the big piece is lollagagging around taking its time.
3 a
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Now I am convinced that"I 4
14 support Commissioner Gilinsky's view of the wording that it i
15 must be inserted.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We can put'anything in that we 17 like.
Crank it in, Howard.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Use the werd independence.
19 CHAIRMAN 'ENDRIE:
Number 10 from Draft 2 or d
20 whatever.
Okay.
i 21 It can be thrown out later on, but as'long as we 22 are' making some suggestions, we may as well get all our 23 marbles in.
24 Pe ter?
Ace Fsdetal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I suppose it would_show
.t__
4m. m 4
.m 1
I I
20 I
something interesting about the intention cf whomever suggested 2
throwing it out.
3 I had a variety of small changes through all this.
4 It may even be easier to Xerox and circulate them so --
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In the findings or --
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Just places here and 7
there, tidying up.
None of them are of much significance, 8
but why don't I send them to Howard.
i 9
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Either send them, and either 10 you or Marty corner Commissioner Bradford and get a copy 11 and so on.
Okay?
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, if they are 13 substantive --
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well if they are substantive 15 they will find out when they look at them.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: When will we find out?
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have, in fact, changed 18 the tone of the entire --
19 MR. SHAPAR:
I assume that all these changes will 20 be reflected in Draft No. 2.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In some way that we don't 22 have to sit and laboriously read every line in both drafts 23 to compare them.
24 MR. SHAPAR:
Suppose I give you comparative texts AwFMusi Retorters, inc.
i 25 of Draft 1 and Draft 2.
7 a.
n.-_.
~
21 I
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Outstanding work, as you
{
i l
2 always do.
8 j
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
To the extent that they l
1
)
4 are legible, I can Xerox themand send them -- (Inaudible.)
5 I mean, things like on the top of page 2, I
I 6
couldn't understand why interstate commerce was any more 7
affected by the impositions.of environmental and safety 8
restrictions on siting and construction, than it was by the 9
Siting and construction themselves.
So I just took out 10 everything from imposition on up to the word siting.
II CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
SubstantialV affected by the 12 siting, construction and operation.
Yes.
t 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I took the phrase " including 14 nuclear power reactors" out of section 3.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
Future power needs.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And I just began number 5 17 with the word " determination."
And then put in the word 18 "should" later on.
19 None of them are of any great policy significance.
20 MR. PEDERSEN:
The duplication is not driven by 21 traditional allocations of authority.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Sounds a little bit like 23 the start of the Declaration of Independence.
24
.MR.
SHAPAR:
Commissioner, if'you will give me a WFedicci Reporters, Inc.
25 copy of it, I will make sure this is cranked in.
l
_ ~,
22 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You can argue with Peter 2
individually as you like, and then signal for us where it 3
seems worthwhile taking note.
4 Okay?
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You now have 95 percent of 6
it.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Good. Section 3.
8 MR. SHAPAR:
This lists comments and suggestions.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Top of page 3.
I think 10 it ought to say something like -- (Inaudible.) -- need for 11 extensive individual licensing of previously approved standard 12 design, or approved standard design.
2>13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Previously approved standard j
14 design.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Other?
17 MR. PEDERSEN:
Yes.
18 On B-1, line 3, I think what --
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Before we lea
't.i, I hist 20 am always a little uneasy about something that says it 21 isn't in the national interest.
I don't have any idea about why anybody would 23 be uneasy about making that a little more specific than 24 j w-reaa n.normi, ine.
saying power plant siting may be facilitated by the use of 1
25 standard design.
l
23 1
l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is going back to the 2
beginning of declarations.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: No, on number 6, top of page 4
3.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But 6 empowers -- 6 is X 6
one of those things that the Congress is declaring.
Does 4
7 that make any difference?
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The point is, we were urging 9
Congress to declare it.
10 MR. PEDERSEN:
As long as Congress understands.
II COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But if I had a clearer idea --
12 I me an, I know what the general intent of national interests 13 there is.
I thought if you set down what at least Senator 14 Hayakawa would recognize as the abstraction ladder, from his 15 previous career as a semanticist, and be a little more specific 16 about what we mean by national interset.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me we could just 18 drop the national interest in this part.
Congress declares 19 that protection of public health and safety -- (Inaudible.)
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And then if number 6 just 21 said nuclaar power plant siting --
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
(Inaudible.)
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Oh, okay.
Oh, I see what 24 you mean, it is in the others, too.
l W FM: val Retmrters, Inc.
l 25 For some reason it stood out to me.
l l
~ _ ~
24 MR. PEDERSEN :
It is pretty standard rhetoric 2
by Congress, ' the national interest.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am sure the Congress wouldn't a
do anything that wasn't in the national interest.
5 Do you feel any strong need to have the national 6
interest in all those things?
7 MR. SHAPAR: No.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don ' t we draf t it without, 9
and the Congress, should this go forward, why you know,they to will proceed to do -- to work their will upon the language.
11 MR. CASE:
Are you just talking about 6, or all
$ 12
,,$ hem?
o 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All of them.
14 I would be happier with a set of findings by the 15 Congress, that -- I think a set of findings by the Co rgress, 16 perfectly -- if they will pass a law with that sort of thing r
17 in it, that is great.
I don' t find a need that they will 18 want us to say in the national interest.
19 Yes.
20 Page 3, I am trying to get to Section 3.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
These are small points, 22 why don't you go on.
23 I guess that would mean, we say the purpose of this 24 Act was to protect the public interest in number 2 --
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
-(Inaudible.)
That is just fluff on tnat.
l.
L-
l I
25 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, but that is the stuff of 2
which a little fluff helps to pad between the rocks.
3 P
(,
PEDE RSEN :
I think it is important in B-1 that f4 We change in the next-to-last-line we change to provide for y
3
>5 early site reviewsj that we change to provide for early site
/6 decisions?
We can do reviews now.
What this bill hopefully p
y) allows us to do is make decisions about, to issue a permit.
j 8
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is fine with me.
9 We can also make decisions now.
10 MR. SHAPAR: Yes.
Il COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You know, one might be more 12 explicit and say that what we are trying to do is get as auch 13 of the process over with before a lot of money is spent in 1-4 the construction work.
It is a nice way to say that.
2 15 Because it is really more than than this.
I mean, 16 it is really more than early site reviews to open advance 17 planning.
18 Really, there is the standardized reactor business.
19 Basically, Wa are trying to get as much of.the process over 20 with earlier.
In fact, to make regulatory decisions at an l
21 earlier point in the process.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Do you feel able to drum up some 23 additions to B-l?
24 MR. SRAPAR:
bs.
Ace roomt nenorters. Inc.
I 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
May I have Section 2?
I l
26 I
MR. SHAPAR:
The only change here was to accommodate 2
a suggestion by Commissioner Gilinsky, that we change the 3
title of te Environment Committee on Reactor Safeguards 4
to the -- (Inaudible.)
5 (Lauchter.)
6 There were a number of options that we had.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The first thing we know Dick 8
wil19 ant to -- I suppose your section is Section 4, Commissioner?
9 Then you have been cheated.
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Not at all.
Il MR.SHAPAR:
We had a number of pros and cons on 12 that suggestion, that we don't talk about it except by request.
C 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think,in fact lt would be good,
,7 y
14 but why don' t we raise the matter with the august committee 15 itself and cce if their inclination for accuracy is greater 16 than their inclination for tradition or not.
17 MR.SHAPAR: Okay.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have a meeting 19 with their chairman this af ternoon, and we are to meet with 20 them on what, Friday morning.
And we certainly need some profound l 21 things to talk to each other about if the conversation lags.
22 I will keep this one ready to stuff in; 23 MR. SHAPAR: Do you want to raise it, or do you want 24 us to raise it?
Aes Fsdual Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. CASE:
I think we tried this two years ago and
4 27 9
1 they balked.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, it is a different committee.
3 MR. SHAPAR: We will check it further.
e l
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't you let me raise it?
I a
5 MR. SHAPAR:
All right.
6 CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE: If I remember. If I don't, why 7
it will just turn up when.we send them a copy of the draft 8
to comment on. They will rise up and strike it.
9 MR. SHAPAR: If they sho,w too much temper, we can 10 shift them to Commissioner Gilinsky.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That is right, we can all stand 12 back and say we didn't think this was a good idea, but Victor 13 insisted.
14 (T aughter. )
15 Okay, Section 4.
16 That was a great section.
I don't understand it, 17 and I don't even know that I want it explained to me. But 18 I think it ought to'be in'there.
19 MR. SHAPAR:
Just to take care of the combined 20 construction and operating licence permits.
No change from 21 the earlier one.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Thank goodness.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Wait a minute. Let me 24 understand that.
t AwFMud Anmners, Inc, i
25 I thought that you were adding things and underlining, i P
I
~_-
t 28 I
and otherwise it is in brackets.
There doesn't seem to be 2
any change here.
3 MR.
SHAPAR: No change it is the same as the earlier 4
bil3.
5 The question was, why is this section in there at 0
all'.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Oh, I see.
8 I thought we were sort of holding on this combined 9
license, diat we were going to do something with it.
10 MR. SHAPAR: I think it was discussed the last time.
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think' the way we lef t it 1
12 was that Howard would word it either on the basis of the 13 old proposals or --
'd
~~ ~
~
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I think to plug the holes,'the'n 5
we would discuss it.
16-COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I just want to go through 17 the possibility of having something and not combined.
Of not combining.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: There is a question of what 0
happens after that, you know, when you are. ready to operate.
l 21 And if you want to call this thing that you just -- the first 22
. stage -- a combined construction permit and operating license 23 or do you want to call it some -- permit X or something.
24 Ace Fsderal Reporters. Inc.
25 we get to the part that deals specifically with CP and combined 1
)
29 I
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That is gorgeous language.
I have 3
read it three times, and each time I find myself -- I have the 4
feeling that I am being led in a circular path through a 5
deep woods.
6 Section 5.
Let's see, a few changes here from the 7
language of the previous NRC bill.
8 Do you understand we are dealing with differences 9
~
from the NRC bill, not the Administration's current --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
(Inaudible.)
11 MR. S HAPAR: The only reason for that change in 12 that general language from A-l is that elsewhere in the bill j
I3 we use the phrase " nuclear power reactors."
We just want to make it consistent.
Just a shorter 15 way of saying it.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I must say nuclear power reactors I7 beat utilization facilities for generation of commercial power 18 any day of the week.
Okay, Federal Power Commission out, Department of 20 Energy in.
Runs through page -- let's see, with those minor 21 changes --
22 MR. KELLEY: Does everything become DOE, or do some 23 of these entities somehow -- there is a new name for the 24 Federal Power Commission, I think.
- sco Fedtect Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. SHAPAR: I think it is DOE, as far as its function
1 30 1
is concerned.
j 2
MR. KELLEY:
No, in terms of --
i 3
MR. SHAPAR: There is an independent regulatory agency 4
MR. KELLEY: Federal E n ergy Regulatory Commission.
5 liR. PEDERSEN :
But it is under DOE.
6 MR. KELLEY:
It is within DOE.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Independent.
i 3
l MR. KELLEY:
It is some. strange animal.
f 9
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It says indeoendent, but 10 within DOE.
II MR. SHAPAFs I would suggest on this point that 12 when and if -- (Inaudible.)
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
Page 5.
Page 6.
This t
Id is the straight-out test.
15 Page 7.
.I 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I hope Mr. Gilinsky noted OI7 that change.
I was delighted to see it had in mind dropping 18 him a note congratulating him on his success.
I9 (Laughter.)
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:Well this is just proposed for 21 the' draft.
Wait until we try it on the committee.
22 MR. PEDE RSEN : Kind of gives us an alternative gg
( #8
'/ 23 beugh at the bottom of the page.
2d (Laughter.)
co Fed rci Reporters, Inc, 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Flexibility is the word.
t f
i t
..#4
31 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I would suggest in the next 2
draft you might wish to drop the footnote as unnecessary.
3 MR. SHAPAR: Right.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's have an Option C.
If 5
A is retaining, and B is what is here, C can be changing 6
safeguards to dangers.
7 (Laughter.)
8 That would almost certainly assure the selection of 9
-one.
10 (Laughter.)
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That is a good thought, choose one, 12 A,
B or C.
13 Okay, page 8.
Still the classic language.
14 On page 9 there are some things stuck into it.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Le t's see, let me ask you 16 on page 8, you are still talking about utilization facilities.
17 Does this cover processing plant?
18 No, let's see, that was -- (Inaudible.)
No, you aren' t talking about production or utiliza-19 20 tion facilities.
Does this bill apply to anything but reactors?
21 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
It depends on what part of the 22 bill you are talking about.
23 The main change is going to apply only to the nuclear 24 power reactors, but a number of other small changes are changes, tes Fedual Reporters, Inc.
y25 that aren 't significant apply as the Atomic Energy Act does in g
32 1
this section, production.and utilization facilities.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why don't we just call them 3
what they are?
There are only two or three, aren't there?
4 j
4 MR. SHAPAR: Not necessarily.
I guess there is --
i
)
5 a chemical processing plant is a production facility, but then i
6 the rare, rare breeds like there was one proposed one time i
]
7 called a fission product encapsulation and something.
Then 1
i 8
there are critical assemblies.
+
5 f
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well aren't those things 10 going to get covered by the Atomic Energy Act?
l 11 MR. SHAPAR:
They are trying to use the terms that
+
l 12 are now in the Atomic Energy Act.
I 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see. The proposed Section J
l 14 111, Advance Planning Early Notice and Survey is nuclear 1
I 15 power reactors. So that is clearcut,
- kw w'ection we are now looking at, s
R 316
,E under Section 185 1
17 Construction Permits, is all of our -- is both production and d
]
18 utilization.
i 19 In the middle of page 9 --
20 MR. SHAPAR: The reason for that change, it was a.
i
-P cked up from the Administration Bill.
It is to knock out 21 i
22 the breeders from the combined construction permit and operating 23 license.
24 I assume that their reason for doing that --
l Acs4edtral Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Wait a minute, it is not just L
l
33 I
breeders, it'is to eliminatethe possibility that a DOE demon-
,/
stration facility required to be licensed by us by the Energy y
3 Reorganization Act, would be allowed to have a combined CP and
'4 OL.
5 MR. SHAPAR:
I think it was intended to remove the 6
possibility that any such demonstration plant could get a 7
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But it isn't breeder.
9 MR. SHAPAR: Breeders is one category.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is demonstration, breeders or 11 demonstration or anything else?
12 MR. S HAPAR: Right.
13 MR. KELLEY:
I ' m not -- well, I think l'
and 2 are 14 breeders; 3 and 4 are waste facilities from my recollection.
15 Is that right, Marty?
He has got the green book.
16 I think 1 and 2 are breeders, 17 MR. MALSCH:
.1 is breeders, 2 is other demonstra-i 18 tion nuclear reactors.
l9 MR.KELLEY: Nuclear reactors?
20 MR. MALSCH:
3 and 4 are waste disposals.
21 i
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Is 1 breeders whether they are 22 demonstration or not?
23 MR. MALSCH: No. Just demonstrator, liquid metal --
24 fast br3eder reactors.
Acs Fsdatt Reporters. Inc.
25 MR. SHAPAR:
So it is demonstration breeders and l
I
34 1
other demonstration reactors.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is fine with me.
It sure 3
seems to be; a trivial piece of --
4 MR. SHAPAR: I think it is quite trivial in terms of 5
actual language, but I think they were trying to remove any 6
element of controversiality.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: This in no way relieves 8
them'of the need to have construction permits --
9-MR. S HAP AR: They just can't get a combined one, 10 that's all.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Howard, are you still 12 on top of this combined permit and license?
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seems to me that this might 14 be the place to talk about it, right, Howard?
r bl5 MR. SHAPAR: That comes on page 10-B Commissioner I
16 right on thd: page.
l 4
l 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I reserve on the rest of page 9.
18 Let's advance to 10.
19 MR. SHAPAR: I guess I was wrong. Now is a good time 20 to discuss it.
I 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Middle of page 9 is the right 4
22
-place.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I guess right now you 24 get an operating license to turn the plant on, pretty much.
leFMmt Rmoners, in:.
l 25 And here you may'be granting a license many years i
35 1
before that event.
2 And I think it would be useful just to call it l
3 something else. I me an, I think it is a good idea to have a 4
kind of approval that goes beyond the construction permit if, 5
in fact, someone has a complete design. But since between that 6
point and the operation of the plant is going to be at least 7
several years, maybe many years, I think that whatever comes 8
at the end of that time before the operation of the plant 9
ought to be a more substantial inspection or review, whatever, 10 than is the case now.
Il So I think it sends the wrong signals to call that 12 early l
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why?
l 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, it sort of sounds l
15 like what we are giving is the approval that you now give 16 just before you turn a plant on.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, no. But why would the 18 inspection be different?
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Because I just can't imagine 20 that there aren't all kinds of things happening, new things 21 turning up, whatever, I mean on that particular planning I 22 am only talking about.
l 23 MR. SHAPAR: Maybe I could perhaps describe the l
24 concept a little bit.
AeftdxcI Rmonm, Inc, 25 This doesn' t detract from any position of authority
)
I
36 1
the Commission has.
The concept of a combined CP and OL was 2
something like this:
3 That under the present structure we review a 4
preliminary design when we issue a CP.
When we issue an OL, 5
we get a final design.
6 The theory was that if an applicant could give us 7
everything at the beginning that they now give us in'two 8
stages, essentially the final design --
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: There is more to it.
You have 10 lived through it, you have watched them build it. There are 11 other things.
12 MR. SHAPAR: Yes, f
13 This is the basic theory though.
)G? they can 14 give us the final design at the very beginning, they can in 15 theory get a license to operate.
16 However, this doesn't remove him from our regulatory 17 authority. We still have authority to inspect, issue orders 18 to stop, do anything.
19 It is largely, I guess in a sense, symbolic language 20 saying if he gives us everything in the beginning that he now 21 gives in two stages, in theory ought to get a license to 22 construct a design.
23 We can issue regulations saying that you can't 24 start operation until we have issued a -- conducted our LaFeesl Repones, inc.
25 inspection and said everything is all right.
I I
l I
I
37.
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think we would have to 2
do that.
But I think it is a different kind of approval than 3
he gets now.
I mean it is an approval which he gets after 4
you have seen the damn thing and you have watched him build it.
5 It is different.
6 And so I guess.I think you ought to call it somethin,g 7
different.
It is really a final design approval.
8 MR. SHAPAR: Well I guess the question you are 9
facing here --
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In terms of the staff's operation, II a combined CP and OL has the following advantage:
12 The applicant comes in and presents the final I3 design of the plant and the safety analyses that go with it Id using the so-called final design parameters.
15 The staff can then make a definitive finding that 16 the analyses are adequate or not, or get them amended as I7 necessary, and then say, okay, the design is okay.
Okay?
18 If you go much of any other route, why you end up I9 with -- you are going to end up with an OL review by the 20 staff to come to those conclusions.
2I The questions of inspecting to make sure that what y)22 he has buil in fac conforms to this designy is not -- that 23 is something in a sense, separate, that goes forward in any 24 case.
kes Fedwal Reporters. Inc, 25 MR. SHAPAR: We_could have complete authority under I
,. ~,
38 I
I the statute to issue regulations --
2 i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I understand.
3 In a way we are just discussing the use of a word.
4 And it is clear that you would have to continue to inspect, 5
you have watched the construction, and then you would have to 6
give it kind of a final checkout to f.i nd out whether --
7 MR. SHAPAR:
Plus an opportunity for hearing, too.
8 j
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see --
1 9
f MR. SHAPAR: Yes, that's in there.
10 l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This would be what, if 11 somebody came forward and --
1 12 MR. SHAPAR:
Before -- 30 days, I guess before the 13 time of operation, even though they had a combined construction Id permit and operating license, they would have to issue a 15 notice offering a hearing on two selected issues or one basic i
16 issue.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
30 days before or up to 30 17 j
days?
18 J
19 i
MR.
SHAPAR:
At least 30 days in advance of intended 20 operation on a selected issue.
And that 'is whether or not 21 because of advances or changes in technology, or as a result 22 of violations of construction permit, there ought to be changes 2
23 or modifications to the facility to provide substantial additional 24 protection for the public health and safety, which is essentially-Aes Fedstat Reporters, irsc.
25 the standard in the original NRC bill.
1
39 1
That is in addition to all the other --
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I think it would be 3
preferable to have some different name for this approval.
I 4
don't think we ought to be going into another review.
I mean 5
that is not the point.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There is no way you can avoid it, 7
Vic, unless you are prepared to issue' an OL on that first 8
submission.
9 If you are going to issue the OL -- if you are 10 going to review the final design up front,then you don't want II to issue the OL until down here and take another look at 12 things in order to reach the findings and go to the papers 13 in order, why the staff is going to ant to review.
7 I4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
WE-1-1, let me~ask, before 15 you get an OL right now, is there a kind of final inspection?
16 Do you get a clearance from IE?
17 MR. S HAPAR: Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So, see it is different.
f 19 MR. DENTON: We do it the same --
20 MR. SHAPAR: We do it the same way.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The OL which -- under this 22 l
the OL which would issue in the beginning would be something l
l 23 which he cannot execute -- which the applicant cannot execute i
24 and start the plant up until some things are taken care of.
Ace Fcdtret Reporters, Inc, 25 There are inspections and a review and whatnot.
i 40
{
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Right now, is there a j
2 final inspection by our inspectors before you get the operating 3
license?
l 4
MR. SHAPAR: Yes.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes,there is. So it is a l
6 different type of approval.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The effect will be exactly
]
8 the same.
l' 9
MR. PEDERSEN: What it is is not so much a final j
l 10 inspection, but I&E as the basis of having done their
/DII programA certifies to or makes a finding to NRR that in 12 their judgment --
13 MR. CASE:
It is substantially in accordance with 14 the application.
15 MR. PEDERSEN:
Yes, has been built in accordance 16 with the application.
It is not the result of a final 17 shakedown.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You do that before you be l9 get something called an operating license. -New-we are talking 20 about' granting --
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Now you get it before the 22 operating license would take effect.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Now we are talking about 24 granting the operating license before that review.
e.e Fedtral Reporters, Inc, l
25 Now I think it is perfectly reaspble to say that I
41 I
you have met -- it is a little bit like going through med 2
school, you have met every requirement but final review, and 3
when you get that final review you get that piece of paper.
4 But I think it wouldn' t be right to call that an 5
operating license because it really is different.
l l
6 MR. SHAPAR:
Suppose we added a statutory provision; 7
notwithstanding the issuance of the combined CP and OL, in 8
addition to the requirement for an opportunity for hearing, 9
commencement of operation cannot take place until the plant
)
10 has been inspected and fiTding has been made that the plant II has been built substantially in accordance with the combined 12 construction permit and operating license?
l 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: So in effect what you have Id done is created a third licensing --
15 MR. SHAPAR: You are going to do it by rulemaking 16 anyway, and if it is bothering Commissioner Gilinsky 17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is not what is bothering 18 him.
l9 What is bothering him is what you are calling the Whatyouare'at4L[itisverydifferent 2,20 thing.
ca-1-in from what 21 the same thing -- the thing with that name is today.
It is 22 a different thing, but you are using the same name.
(p 23 MR. SHAPAR:
Of course it was intended all along to j
2d be a carrot.
Aco Fedirst Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I understand. But, I think l
1 42 I
it is right to do the review at that point, to complete it, j
2 and if there haven't been any modifications in the design --
3 presumably they are going to have to go over that again --
4 but I think we are all agreed that there is going to have to l
5 be a certain amount of inspection of the f acility.
6 And normally, at the present time, that inspection 7
comes before you get the piece of paper.
O MR. SHAPAR: I think there are going to be a whole 9
lot of requirements. This is just a statute. We are going to 10 have to put a bunch of detailed rules.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We are now calling a 12 different kind of approval than we now give out with different I3 kinds of rights attached to it, an operating license.
14 MR. CASE: How about calling it a conditional 15 operating license?
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think that is fine.
17 And then to say this is converted --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That shall not become --
19 the operating license so granted shall not become effective until.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think what we are worried 27 about, is that we are going to leave an opening for a new 23 review process.
24 i
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You bet.
If you call it anything AceJedsrei Reporters, Inc.
25 else than an operating license, say this is an operating 1
l
43 1
license of a second kind, why then there will turn out to be 2
an operating license of the third kind, review when the l
3 plant gets ready to run.
And it just destroys the utility I
4 of the provision.
5 COtiMISSIONER KENNEDY: Can' t you obviate that by 6
simply saying, just as it now does, you have got a combined 7
construction permit and operating license. The operating 8
license so granted shall become effective upon completion _of 9
the inspection after the plant has been constructed, to 10 certify or whatever, that the plant has been constructed in II accordance with the design?
12 MR. CASE: That may not be the only condition you 13 want to put in there.
Id MR. PEDERSEN: The Commission would have to issue --
15 COMMISEONER KENNEDY: You would issue the license 16 to become effective only after these things have occurred.
17 MR. SHAPAR:
Another way of doing it, to make it 18 even broader is, commencement of operation shall be subject 19 to rules and regulations as may be promulgated by the Commis-20 sion.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It would be nicer to say 22 something like that though in the statute. Otherwise the 23 rulemaking will probably lead up conditions on the effective-24 ness of that license.
see RMaal Remners, Inc.
25 It would be nice if the statute would make it
I f
44 r
I perfectly clear.
4 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I would prefer to see the statute 3
with something like the last suggestion of Howard's, rather r
4 than a set of things about inspections, because we now make 5
execution.of the license, implementation of the license 6
conditional upon meeting all these final inspections and t
7 checking everything out and so on.
And to put into statute i
8 that requirement explicitly for this, probably not-ta>often-l 9
to-be-used provision, and to ignore it on the other, is a 10 trifle lot.
II COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But the granting of the 12 operating license is our contention on certain steps that I3 have not been taken here. We are in a sense evaluating the Id operating license.
15 MR. SHAPAR: I think the only one that is specifi-16 cally referred to in the statute, not here is the finding --
I7 CHAIRHAN HENDRIE:
Not necessarily.
I IO At the present time under the present circumstance, bb I9 we occasionally find an applicant who will come in,in a very
)j320 aggressive fashionjwith an application for the OL Shduif_ititurns 21 out to be a place where there is not a great deal of controversy 22 about, the plant design isn' t very controversial, we may very 23 well go forward to an operating license, go into hearing or 24 that formal procedure some time before the plant actually
' ce Fedirst Reporters, Inc.
25
- operates, and the final inspections can be completed.
t l
i I
45
)
I MR. SHAPAR:
But you would have to make -- before 2
the license can be issued, the Commission must, under the 3
present statute, make a finding that the plant has been d
completed in accordance with the application as amended, 5
which means the construction permit.
f.34 MR. CASE:
It is right preceding the section you j
7 are dealing with.
8 MR. SHAPAR:
I think the way this shapes up to me, 9
at least, is that number one you do have this authority 10 by rulemaking under the statute. If you want to go beyond that 11 as an option, you can.
I guess there are two options. Number 12 one, you can make it specifically as Commissioner Kennedy 13 suggested, subject to that final inspection to see if it is 14 built as advertised. Or a more general thing is that commenct-15 ment of operation won't take place until such requirements 16 as the Commission made by rule or regulation.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That is what it says on the 18 preceding section.
Upon a finding that the facility 19 authorized has been constructed and will operate.
MR. SHAPAR:
That is for the OL, I believe.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Right.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Under the format that you 23 contemplate, Howard, what happens if you issue the CP and OL 24 WFedust Aeporters, Inc.
E 9
25 that was being constructed starts up under similar conditions, f
9
46 4
j you discover that there is say, a problem with discharging 2
that volume of warm water into a bay just like the one this 3
one is going to discharge into. Something no one anticipated, a
something that just happens that you have experienced somewheres 5
else.
6 Under the procedure in here, how does that knowledge I
then get cranked in?
What lever do we have with an applicant?
7 8
MR. SHAPAR: Two levers, I would say.
9 Number one, there is the hearing requirement that to there be an opportunity for a public hearing prior to commence-11 ment of operation, on the issue of whether or not advance, or i
12 change of technology, or violations of the construction per-13 mit dictate that changes or modifications of the facility 14 should be made, or other action taken.
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That remains a possibility?
16 MR. SHAPAR: Yes.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That is a lever generally 18 available.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Today?
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
To everybody under this.
21 MR. SHAPAR: Now as far as the Commission itself 22 is concerned, without any stimulus from the outside, we have
- l j
23 full authority to suspend, revoke, condition, amend any kind 24 of a license that we issue.
- AceJedsret Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: At any time.
t i
f I
47 1
MR. SHAPAR: At any time.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So once the staff becomes aware r
' j3 of the difficulty on plant A which reflects on plant B which j
y 4
is getting close to operation, why they just come over and 5
lay it on them and say, let's fix it.
So there any 6
problem with the Commission.
7 MR. SHAPAR:
Plus the fact that the public is 8
invited, too.
N
'7 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: WEid, let's see.
Would words along 10 the line, and upon finding that the facility -- well, for 11 the combined thing, wouH you like to see language along the 12 lines of the previous page, bottom of page 8, that before the 13 operation starts, the Commission would make finding that the 14 facility has been constructed and will operate in conformity 15 with the application as amended, in conformity with the 16 provision and so on and so on?
17 COMMISSIONER GILIN!,KY:
I guess something, just so 18 it indicates that -- okay.
19 CHAIRMAN H2NDRIE: Okay?
Why don't you try it and 20 throw in, upon suitable inspections and findings by the 21 Commission and so on and so on.
Okay?
22 How about that?
23 COMMISSIONH1 GLINSKY:
Okay?
1 24 I will reserve on it.
Aco. Federal Reporters Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, but let's see what the it.nguage
i 48 j
looks like.
2 COMMISSIONEL GILINSKY:
Leaving aside this problem 3
of provoking another review --
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is a good word, too.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
-- it would be analogous --
6 I mean the steps that would conform with present practice, 7
would be to hand them the operating license when the plant 8
has been completed and has been inspected and to have 9
something -- you know, in a sense you have completed your 10 requirements, you have written your thesis, but you haven't 11 gone through the final session with your committee.
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
So that we can go by the 13 Previous grading system.
3 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It was worth an A 20 years j
15 ago.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, onward.
IT Publishing once in the Federal Register and twice 18 in all major newspapers servicing the affected area at least 19 30 days prior _o commencement.
20 Okay, I think publication in newspapers is fine.
21 I raise the following question:
22 Does the language " published in all major newspapers 23 servicing the affected area" is that a trifle too broad and 24 inclusive?
That is, are we going to have any trouble um.re nci nem n.n.ine.
l 25 distinguishing all of the major newspapers that -- servicing l
i
t 49 I
the affected area?
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Does that include The Wall 3
Street Journal?
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The Christian Science Monitor?
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The New Ycrk Times?
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Would language -- and twice --
7 just delete all -- in major newspapers servicing the 8
affected area.
All is a lot.
99.99 percent is still not all.
9 MR. SHAPAR:
Okay.
10 MR. KELLEY: The FCC has this kind of thing on q
11 renewals, and I think it is two, rather than all. But I don't 12 think anybody would say all, because of The Wall Street Journal.
13 CHAIRMAN P.w &E: And such things.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: There may only be one.
15 MR. KELLEY:
In Iowa it is The Des Moines Register, 16 that is it.
i 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There is no second.
18 Okay, onward.
i 19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Under 1 or 2 --
20 MR. SHAPAR:
Which page?
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Page 9, still down at the 22 bottom, that question I had before regarding some advance 23 knowledge about what the hot water might do to the bay, 24 which one would you come in under with that problem, and 4a Feuci n.non.n. ine.
l 25 where a citizens ' group?
I
50 I
MR. SHAPAR:
It might escape either of those as 2
a basis for the public hearing and proceeding, because you 3
are saying if you discovered --
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it would be an advance, 3
change of technology.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But what you learn is not 7
an advance or change in technology.
What you have learned is 8
what you have got in place that is going to cause a problem 9
you didn' t think it was going to cause.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But that is a piece of empirical 11 evidence that suggests that your understanding of that 12 section of the technology is now improved.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Right, but you have not 14 advanced or changed the technology itself.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Oh, but the technology includes 16 not just hardware and equipment and modes of operation, but 17 also analysis and the basis for understanding and so on.
18 The technology includes the understanding aspect.
19 Do you have anything in mind?
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I don't.
I think it would 21 be a relatively small change in wording, but something 22 contemplating knowledge of new problems.
23 It seems to me in that context, if I was a lawyer 24 for the utilities I would argue that technology in fact i
tes-Fedsral Reporters, Inc.
25 doesn't include the knowledge, but the hardware.
f i
51 8
8 1
MR. REAMER:
How about technology or ii.iormation?
2 MR. SHAPAR: Your thought is knowledge of significant i
3 new problems?
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
Maybe -- category 3, 5
perhaps.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I am not even sure that advances 7
in technology, if they do not affect the safety of the plant, 8
are appropriately entered as reasons.
9 MR. SHAPAR: But the governing clauses at the end 10 takes care of that point.
It only has to meet one or two, II but because of those there should be some modification in i
12 the facility to provide for public health and safety protection.
s l
13 That governs both 1 and 2.
Id MR. CASE: What is the genesis of that violation in 15 the language?
16 MR. SHAPAR: Negotiation with other federal agencies 17 during round 2 or 3, about three or four years ago.
I think 18 CEQ, if I am not mistaken. Or EPA, one or the other.
I9 CRAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
l 20 MR. SHAPAR:
Shall I try to develop language then, 21 that will accommodate the idea of significant new knowledge?
^
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: New knowledge regarding 23 possible harmful effects, something like that.
2d CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
4 tee Ftdatcl Reporters, Inc.
25 Retain the back end language, because if you are I
\\
52 1
going to do any good with this, why you want to have a rather 2
high threshold for these late-running proceedings.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN I?ENDRIE: Let's see, page 10, we wanted 5
to see embedded in the statute or LWA.
6 MR. SHAPAR: Yes, we think we have authority because 7
we have been issuing them --
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think that is fine.
That 9
clarifies it, and relieves the LWA from any vulnerability or 10 judicial challenge, at least of certain kinds.
11 Section 186, revoke for any material false state-12 ments.
13 MR. SHAPAR: These are just conforming changes to 14 pick up the new concept to site plants.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see, page 13, we have got 16 90 days -- why do we have to go so far out?
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
All the newspapers?
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, strike all, again.
19 And why are we out at 90 days now?
20 Let's see, this is in the case of a -- please 21 tell me?
22 MR. SHAPAR:
This is 189-A which is the basic c
23 hearing section, 90 days to comply to a CP, or a combined C 24 OL.
All other type hearings, 30 days, co-F@cet Remnen, inc. I I
3 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Prior to the granting of any l
l l
53 mm I
such application, does the 90 days give us any pain?
2 MR. SHAPAR: I would think not for the CP or the combinedCP/0L, no problem at all.
3 4
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: When do we notice now?
5 MR. SHAPAR:
Months and months in advance, way 6
beyond 90 days; way beyond 120 days; vay beyond 160 days.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, next page.
8 Dispense with it upon determination.
C j)sw 9
THere-is now -- let 's see, top of page 14, you may 10 dispense with the 30-days notice with respect to an amendment.
II Okay.
12 You have got a little drafting problem, haven't you?
13 If you could dispense with the 30-days notice -- no, you Id haven't either, you are all right.
j 15 And you don't need noticing upon a determination 16 that the amendment involves no significant hazards considera-
' y 17 tion.
I believe that is t he classic language of the present --
18 MR.SHAPAR: Yes, -there has been no change in the I9 present statute.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I can dimly remember back through 21 the years writing you bad-tempered notes that the present 22 language was ill-advised, fattening, high cholesterol levels --
23 MR. SHAPAR: Difficult to administer, yes.
j, 24 As a matter of fact)the Administration bill would i
Aes.Fedirol Ret ters, Inc.
25 require us by rulemaking, to define it, and I didn' t put it in.
i l
I t
.. ~ -.. -.
t 54 l
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And I can't remember the specifics 4
2 of my complaint about no significant hazards consideration.
J l
3 Is it appropriate language?
Would it be better --
l 4
Ed, perhaps you can help -- if the language were along the 5
line; upon a determination by the Commission that the i
6 amendment involved what, no significant risk to the public j
j 7
health and safety or the common defense and security?
I j
8 MR. CASE:
Well that is an easier one to administer, i
j 9
but it is some change in the thrust of the statute that I am j
'10 not sure you want to take on with all the other things.
That' II is the point.
12 MR. SHAPAR: Well, what we tried to do with the 1
l 13 statute, the basic theory is, decide what are the threshold f
i 14 goals we want to accomplish, try to use some self discipline i
15 in not digging out all the minor things that were wrong with j
16 the act to be improved.
j 17 This has given us trouble, it is a difficult i
18 provision to administer, as you know probably better than 19 anybody else.
l 20 If you don't mind taking on this too, we could fix I
21 it.
But it could turn out to be controversial.
l 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I think it needs fixing.
23 You should go ahead and fix it.
I I,ne.
y.ueen.nL.?d CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I prefer to try the fix language, if the sort of thing I have suggested would be agreed by NRR l
25 9
l l
55 I
and'you guys that that would help, and clarify things, it i.
2 would help.
1 3
Why don't we try it, and if we get driven out of i
4 it, why we will retreat to the old language as gracefully as
)
t 5
we can manage.
6 MR. KELLEY:
There is a gloss on the old language,
)
~7 at least one that I am aware of.
I 8
Max Paglin wrote an opinion in Big Rock Point a 9
couple of years ago, trying to decide what no significant j
10 hazards consideration was.
II And the history of the statute is very murky.
12 j
And Paglin ends up saying, well,that there is a 5
i j
13 lot of smoke, there must be fire.
I?)4 And the very effort the staff had to go toj ot 4
l 15 demonstrate that there was no problem there, convinced him 10 that there were significant hazards.
I'7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That there was a problem.
18 MR. KELLEY:
Exactly.
19 So that is a very, very narrow -- if Paglin's 20 opinion is right, and it is the only one I know on the point, 2I it is a very narrow authority now.
+
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And it seemed to me that what i
23 had been meant in the original statute, that the language just chosen by the drafter originally was not.very good.
And what 24
- An FMad Repomes. Inc.
l 25 he meant was if you have any reason to think that your original l
s---
m9 t-
+
56 4
I finding
-- that the amendment involves a matter which will f2 change your basic original findingg thing can operate with g
3 reasonable assurance that this new risk and so on, then you 4
ought to notice it.
5 Otherwise, why go ahead.
6 MR. CASE:
The problem with no significant risk is 7
you essentially have to make that finding in order to approve 8
the amendment.
So whatdoesthataddthefindingyou
$9 have to make before you can authorize it anywap if you find 10 no undue risk to health, safety and public.
II CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I invite your attention to better 12 words than I suggested. Okay?
13 What I am trying to do is clarify what I found to I4 be a rather murkey and troublesome sort of thing and also, 15 perhaps, to raise the threshold for noticing a little bit, so 16 that every confounded nit and gnat didn' t get noticed.
I7 MR. CASE: That you can do by rulemaking.
The 18 standard here is so vague, you can say it needs just about 19 everything the heck you want it to say.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well at this point we have already 21 got some opinion --
22 MR. CASE:
But whatever you say takes the place of 23 whatever. Max Paglin said.
l 4
MR. KELLEY:
What Max -- Max was construing a Aes FedIrci Reporters, Inc.
f 25 statute, and maybe Max was right.
You recall what happened in l l
1 l
I i
i 57 4
1 Big Rock Point.
I 2
MR. MALSCH: The only legislative history I am l-aware of, it str'ikes me it says we construed it very narrowly l
4 and carefully.
j 5
MR. KELLEY:
They made the determination and a
6 slipped it out, then got sued, and said, never mind, we will 7
have>a hearing.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes. If you can't think of any 9
better words, why good, leave it as it is.
I am suggesting j
10 to you that here is a chance to try a slightly different 11 set of words that might improve the operation.
l i
12 j
MR. SHAPAR:
One thing I might suggest, is no 13 significant safety problem might raise the threshold a. bit.
t 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIEi Now, let's see.
Asterisks.
15 "The Commission may, upon determination that such j
i 16 action is necessary to the publia indnest4ssue in the case of
}
17 a reactor, an interim' operating license or an interim 3>18 amendment or allow interim operation, et cetera, et cetera.
19 You had a flag on this one, too, that you wanted i
20 to scratch your head and think a little bit about?
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I would leave it 22 out if only because DOE left it out.
It is a little hard for 23 us to'be moving beyond (Inaudible.)
24 But in any case, I have some real questions ics-FMItal Reprters, lrc 25 about whether there is any real need for this, and B, whether
58 1
it is a wise-thing to do?
2 And my-inclination would be to limit it to 3
interim amendments.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Other opinions?
5 My view runs the other way on this.
r 6
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, aside from thinking 7
that it is okay to put it in, do you think that it is something 8
that there is a need for?
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I will tell you, this is one of l
~
10 several provisions.
It is one of a few -- let's see, it is qs
}nf 7 11 one of a couple included in this draft irbt there are others y
12 beyond the draft that I want to talk about, if not this 13 afternoon, the next time around, which would come under the 14 heading of industry incentives provisions.
15 That is, provisions which of fer reasons for one 16 or another of the industrial sectors tomove in the directions 17 that we think on balance we would like to see them move.
18 We need some similar sorts of incentive 19 paragraphs in the standardization area, if we are ever going 20 to provide any reason for the vendors, utilities and 21 architect-engineers to support some of the standardization 22 enterprises that we think it would be desirable for them 23 to support.
24 This particular thing on an interim -- the
,ce.Fedtral Reporters, Inc.
25 specific statutory authority to go forward with an Interim t'
1
. ~ -.
.~-
59 I
I Operating License in advance of completion of the hearings, 2
has the -- well, seems to be a thing which I sense is of l
3 considerable interest on the industry side, although it seems i
to me that it would be a provision that the Commission would l
5 exercise, I suspect, with great care, s
6 l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think that is probably t
i 7
right.
On the other hand --
O CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think we would probably be t
n 9
l more disinclined than inclined to use it in any sort of l
10 routine fashion.
l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask you, it is an f
12 l
incentive to do what?
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is an incentive to draw their 14 support to the bill.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Wait a minute, tha t is a 1
16 j
different kind of action.
I thought we were talki2 about I7 actions having to do with the process of building ni: lear i
0 power plants.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There are several kinds of 4
0 incentives.
Some of them have to do with incentives that 2I j
encourage or would encourage, for instance, AEs to 22 standard stamp the rigors of a rulemaking proceeding on 23 a standard design.
1
'24 Provisions to encourage utilities or states to
- Ace Fsdiral Reporters, Inc.
25 come early and stand the rigors of an early site proceeding.
~
- ~.
60 I
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And all I am suggesting is 2
that if those incentives are adequate, then I don't know why I
they would need separate incentives to support the bill.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think there is a very widespread 0
i feeling that this bill ought to be opposed by the industry.
6 l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: We ought to put in the pC W D
7 97 provisions-that we think are sound, I nd if it falls in that 0
category, then it ought to go in.
If not, it ought to go out.
I guess I don't think we ought to be sort of 10 enticing them in to support that bill.
It is their business, 11 I am a little concerned, it looks to me a little bit 12 sort of, I don't know, getting back at Mike Cherry, something,
\\
3 in dealing with old business.
I think as a practical matter, I don' t think that 2
15 these plans get held up by frivolous hearings at the operating 16 license stage anymore anyway.
And it may, while I think the 17 Commission would exercise it with very good care, it would 18 grant these interim licenses I think extremely infrequently, 19 i
that there would be many disincentives to do so.
20 I think the industry may see it differently, and 21 to them, they have done this sort of thing in the past.
I 22 mean, they haven't exhibited the greatest wisdom in dealing 23 with some of their problems, and they may simply take a
-24 stif fer position in hearings and just come running here and see.r.orre n.pon.ri, ine.
25 look to us to bai1~them out.
61 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
On the basis that the Commission 2
has the authority. and if enough pressure is built up they will 3
have to grant it.
.4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
I see your argument.
6 Could we get a sense?
7 Peter, how would you go on it?
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think I would be 9
inclined to -- I know I would be inclined'to leave it out.
10 Let me just ask, do the kinds of operating licenses 11 which now permit you to operate at quarter power or half wad h 12 powr or 70 percent or full power, aren't they Interim 13 Operating Licenses of a sort anyway?
14 MR. CASE:
Yes, but they are conditioned on no 15 contest.
If there is a contest on it, it would have to go to 16 a hearing regardless of the amount, l
17 MR. 'SHAPAR:
Under the present law, anything they 18 want to litigate, they are entitled to litigate before any 19 authority is granted.
20 If they don't want to litigate -- the only thing 21 they want to litigate is' full power, and they are willing 22 to stipulate it is all right at 75 percent,then you are home 23 free.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I see.
Ace.Fedtect Reporters, Inc.
25 As long as somebody was litigating operation at all,
__ _ __ _ __a
-. - - =.
62 j
then you couldn't grant a 50 percent operating --
2 MR. CASE:
That is correct.
3 MR. SHAPAR:
The theory of this is, that it is a
standby, rightly or wrongly.
That it would not be used in 5
your routine situation.
t 6
But there might come a time in a rare case where, 7
for example the power is really needed because of an 8
emergency crunch or something like that, perhaps the only j
9 issue being litigated is a very minor issue and not a basic 1
l 10 health and safety issue.
i l
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, you know, if we can't l
l 12 run the system so that minor issues dcn't hang up cases --
1 l
13 I me an, that really calls for higher discipline in hearings.
l 14 MR. SHAPAR:
I think the determined intervenor 1
15 with lots of money, if he has a minor issue can make a major i
l 16 issue.
i l
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I' don't see that happening 18 today.
319 MR. SHAPAR:
Browns Ferry 3 is a good example.
j l
l 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But if you just restructured i
21 the process such that the operating license or whatever we 22 are going to call it phase, contains the standard at least i
23 for those people who have gotten the earlier permits, contains.
24
_ the standard that there has to be a showing of significant Am FWunt Resorters, lnc.
25 technological development or additional hazard, or whatever i
63 1
the third one was.
2 MR.-SHAPAR: But that is only for track 3.
I mean 3
it is a long time before peopla use track 3.
4 CHAIRNaN HENDRIE:
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But they don't have to 6
have a standard design to use track 3?
7 MR. SHAPAR:
I'm sorry?
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: They don't have to have a 9
standardized design -- they do have to have a standardized 10 design?
11 MR. SHAPAR:
To use track 3.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could you tell me what
' b 13 the issue is in Browds Ferry 3?
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do they have an OL7 C g215 MR. CASE: All the Browns Ferry have OLs.
I 16 don't know which one you are talking about.
17 MR. SHAPAR: Staff qualifications.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is no longer in any sense 19 an issue before the Commission?
20 MR. CASE:
No.
21 MR. SHAPAR:
I wouldn't be mentioning it --
22 MR. CAS9: I thought the one he was talking about was 23 the intervenor came in and said, have we gone through the 24 fire restoration.
And TVA shouldn't be allowed to restart Aa-fsdtral Reporters, Inc.
' 25 this plant because they are incompetent.
64 mm 1
MR. SHAPAR:
And the staff was incompetent.
2 MR. CASE:
Carter was his name.
3 And we had a hearing on the thing, but we did 4
not hold up operation of the plant even though we had such 5
a hearing.
6 MR. SHAPAR: That was a very close call.
7 MR. CASE:
It was a very close call, admitted.
8' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What is your inclination.
i 9
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think we ought to leave
'10 it in.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I tell you what, for the next 12 draft, since we are at the moment 2-2, let's leave the words 13 in the middle of the page "and Interim Operating License" in, 14 but put brackets around it.
Okay, and an asterisk.
j i
15 And now the asterisk, instead of saying as an 16 alternative, why it should say 2 to 2, to b e determined on 17 next draft.
18 (Laughter.)
19 And see if anybody has any further arguments.
20 Okay, onward.
21 Besides, I may find something I may want to trade 22 you.
23 (Laughter.)
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That may not trade me off.
AceJcoval Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If I trade the first one and
65 t
1 you hold out, you might get two.
2 (Laughter.)
3 Why are we amending 191-A to say we can have ASLPs?
4 MR SHAEARi_ Because we have site permits.
S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Site authorization or site 6
permit, you just quoted the whole thing, just to have the 7
language complete.
Okay.
That's good.
8 Early site approval and standardization.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Before we embark, I don't 10 want to go back, I just wanted a quick idea of what our 11 schedule is.
Whet:1er, for example, you are going to look at 12 the New Mex'co thing?
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, good.
14 If we may now interrupt this meeting for a brief i
15 pause to discuss agenda items.
i 16 (Discussion off the record.)
17 (Recess.)
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Early site approval and 19 standardization.
Let's see. Here we go with the early site.
20 The language has from time b time, deviations from 21 previous NRC recommendations, which we certainly want to look 22 at.
23 To what extent do we need to review sort of from 24 the base, Peter, primarily because you are -- (Inaudible.) --
Ace Fedtral Reporters, ine, 25 the rest of us have seen versions of this through the years.
1
.. _. _. ~ _..
66 I
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is always hard to know mm 2
how much you don' t. know, 3
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That is the only thing that keeps 4
us sane.
5 (Laughter.)
6 We would all crack immediately if it weren't for 7
that.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is just-hard to know 9
what questions.
4 10 I guess I have some skepticism about how successful II early siting is really going to be.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That is certainly valid.
13 And I think that remains'to be seen.
And it seems Id to me that nobody is going to be much interested, at least on 1
15 the utility side -- a couple of states might go ahead on 16 their own -- on the utility side unless there is a guid pro 4 > I7 quo involved, which inevitably must mean that if they are I
18 they are willing to stand the gap of this hearing on this I9 site at an early stage, they get close to a free ride when 20 they decide to build a specific plant, as close to a free 21 ride as we can
- rite into the rules, reasonably write into 22 the rules.
23 Without that, I don't think people use it much.
2#
Even with that then the question is -- I think over time it
- Ace-Fedtral Reporters, Inc.
25 may be useful. But it is going to be a decade before you l
67 I
see much help from this sort of source.
2 Nevertheless, that may' be very helpful in the late 3
'80s.
It may be scratching things like this.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is not a concept that l
5 troubles me.
In fact, it is one of the concepts in the i
6 bill that I am more easy with than some of the others.
7 (Laughter.)
8 If the utility can clear through us or if states 9
can clear through us on sites, then I think it is going to 10 be very helpful to the states as their own land use patterns l
11 develop to know where these things are going to be.
12 And half the chaos, I suppose, is that people 13 feel that this sudden intrusion of a new facility into their 14 community is going to affect their property value.
If they 15 had known for five or ten years in advance that is where a 16 plant is going to be, obviously a lot of the uses that 17 would be incompatible with that won't grow out and the 18 vested interest won't be there.
19 That is not a very technical discussion of the bill, 20 but it is how I feel about it.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see, you are talking 22 about Section 13 here?
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
24' Why don't we look at the change from the previous
- \\ce-Fedtral Reporters, Inc,
.25 language at-the end of paragraph A.
This was just to clarify l
L
68 4
I that there was nothing in paragraph A that affected our present 2
ability to deal with limited issues.
3 That is, if somebody -- if an applicant or utility 4
wants to come in and say, would you look just at the seismic S
characteristics of the site for me, we believe we have the 6
authority to do that now.
And on occasion we do do it.
7 We want to make clear that there is no indication 8
in the legislation that that is not the case.
)
l 9
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The seismic matter is a 10 matter of casual note? --(Inaudible. )-- up to now head of the 11 USGS.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:^ You know those pictures 13 occasionally that you will find in people's offices, that 14 say " Humor Me" and it is the head of a gorilla snarling?
15 Well, I hope they send one like that.
16 (Laughter.)
l 17 Let's see, at the bottom of page 17, there is a 18 provision that where there has been an early site hearing 19 and the site has been banked, nou the applicant comes in and 9
20 files a specific construction permit application, he can go 21 ahead and do a certain amount of construction as we determine 22 to be permissible, at his risk.
And this goes somewhat 23 beyond'our present allowances because we would allow him, at 24 least -- the statute allows us to go a little distance in
- Aes FedTral Reporters, Inc.
25 the safety-related construction.
1
69 Q
eoM$cYEW' y
MR. SHAPAR: I wouldn't say the amount of construvL 2
is any different, merely the fact that he doesn't need any 3
further approva1 E he is using a banked site. Merely by filing the construction permit application he can now doj I would say, 5
as much as he can do on an LWA.
However you want to change that by rule.
7 MR. KELLEY:
How does the state need for power 8-determination dovetail with this?
9l MR. SHAPAR:
I don ' t think that --
10 MR. KELLEY:
Or does it?
11 MR. SHAPAR:
I don't think that the need for power 12 issue can be resolved when the early site approval is given, 13 because it can be ten years in advance.
14 MR. KELLEY:
I agree.
You bank a site; ten years 15 later you may want to move on it.
16 But do you have to have in hand a state need for j
17 power determination beforot you clear the site?
18 MR. SHAPAR: No, not in this draf t.
19 MR. KELLEY:
I am just raising the question, j
20 whether that is desirable.
21 CO:WISSIONER KENNEDT :
But you would need that 22 to move with the plant?
23 MR. SHAPAR: Yes.
24 e
e ask a quesdon.
. Ace Ftdtral Reporters, Inc.
25 Right now do you have to have all of your NEPA I
70 4
1 1
reviews out of the way to get the site approved say for an l
2 LWA?
i I
a j
3 MR. SEAPAR: Well you would have har asic i
3 4
NEPA-review done when you got your site approvea.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But you are taking the 6
cost-benefit analysis out of the picture.
7 MR. SHAPAR: To the extent that you can't deal 1
8 with the need for power at that time, I guess that is correct.
j l
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, but you are also
{
throwing out. balancing that against other kinds of power 10 II plants.
12 MR. SHAPAR: I think the theory is -- maybe Harold i
j 13 Denton can speak to this, or Ed Case.
l 14 The theory is, you assume the parameters of the l
15 plant for purposes of the NEPA review. And as I understand 16 it, it would be a pretty complete NEPA review. But without 17 knowing the precise design:: details --
l 18 MR. CASE:
He would approve the site for a 19 relatively specific plant, not just any plant.
l 20 MR. SHAPAR: You assume the parameters.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is that right?
22 MR. CASE:
Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What does that do for 24 anybody?
- ACFederot Reporters, Inc.
25 Doesn't that narrow his choice?
-t
i-
~
i l
71 j
l MR. SHAPAR:
You may have to narrow his choice. You 2
might even want to put in conditions in the site permit that i
i 3
says it is only good for pressurized --
4 j
MR. CASE:
Light water,the. type previously approved, t
5 it would be that sort of thing.
1 6
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, is that a workable j
7 arrangement?
I me an, it would seem to me it wouldn't make j
8 much sense if you are approving it for, you know, a GESSAR t
9 or something.
10 MR. DENTON: It has to be a type with which we have II had experience, to define the kind of impact.
i 12 So I can envision it would only be limited to light t,
13 water reactors of the type that we have had in the past.
It j
14 wouldn 't work for a brand new reactor concept that we have
)
15 not reviewed.
And we wouldn't really know if it would be j
16 suitable.
It is not only environmental issues, it is site 1
17 suitability that would have to be taken care of, radiological
~
j 18 safety.
1 4
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What would you be doing?
(
20 I mean presumably there are a set of these.
Would there be l
21 an envelope that includes all of them?
a i
l 22 MR. DENTON: We have made up operating characteris-j 23 tics of operating plants now, characteristics of construction 24 and so forth.
4 Ace FC:Dat Reporters, Inc.
25
. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And is this a matter to be i
.. ~ -....
..i
72 4
1 handled simply or is there something -- (Inaudible.)
2 MR. DENTON: Well, we haveanalyzed really now in 3
the context of the LWAs, because at that point you don't really 4
know what the final desicn of the plants were.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, except that you have 1
6 go t the plant there.
7 I:mema, I think that is different.
If you are 8
talking about -- to me, to make this a useful concept, the 9
applicant shouldn't have to decide even at that point whether 10 it is going to be a BWR, a PWR.
Il MR. CASE:
He doesn't have to do that.
12 MR. DENTON:
It just has to be something we have 13 reviewed and approved in the past.
14 MR. KELLEY:
Any preapproved design could.be used 15 on an early site.
16 MR. DENTON:
It says for a brand new reactor 17 concept it is not applicable, i
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So you can't use the early 19 site review for a custom plant then, or can you.
Or does 20 that include -- oh, I see, that is considered a type you 21 had reviewed before.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes. You consider the type 23 we have reviewed before to be --
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I see.
Okay.
- e Fedust Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Not that tightfitting cloak.
l t
73 i
MR. DENTON:
With regard to the question that you 2
had raised, we had thought about an option whereby you would 3
not let construction begin until they had the certificate of 4
need in hand.
I mean, that would be one way -- see, at the 5
moment we don't let m.le LWA issue until we have determined 6
the need for the plant in a hearing process.
7 But this could be set, for example, that construction 8
can't begin until the applicant has it in hand.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask you, are we 10 going to be looking, do you think, at alternative sites?
Or, 11 are we simply checking each site against a set of standards, 12 and if it meets the standard, it is okay; if it doesn't 13 meet, it is not okay?
14 MR. DENTON:
A chief part of the early site review 15 is to look at alternative sites at that stage.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But once the site has stood that 17 test in the early site review and hearing --
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Oh, yes, well I am just 19 asking --
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- and is banked, and now I 21 want to put a specific plant on it, now there is no more 22 horsing around about all of this.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right.
24
- e Fedirst Reporters, Inc.
The first time around you would be looking at a 25 j
r
74 i-I number of alternatives.
4 l
2 MR. DENTON: That is correct.
J l
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That is the way you envisage A
i it.
5 So there is a-certain kind of balancing left over, 6
or weighing and comparing.
i f
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What is left over is the i
8 need for power.
9 The other weighing and comparing having been 10 done in the first instance, 11 MR. CASE:
Assumed need for power.
4 1
}
12 The actual need for power question arises when f
somebody then wants to build the plant on that site.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE : And the provision that we are
)
15 looking at here on the bottom of page 17, allows the guy to 5
16 l
go ahead in advance of that determination.
4 MR. SHAPAR: But it is only in terms of digging the hole --
19 l'
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And to start construction.
If i
20 it doesn't pan out, why he has got a little problem.
21 MR. PEDERSEN:
Let me pursue this one step further, 22 though.
l 23 You preapprove a site subject to an envelope of J2s fcw nah mMhku m.
a M mes b QM pan law j ace F.e r.i a.nort i. ine.
and proposes to build a plant there. Can he start work there l
~.
75 I
immediately, or must he wait for some type of mini-determination 2
by the Commission that his plant falls within that envelope?
3
{
MR. SHAPAR: This would be subject, of course, to 3
l d
such reasonable rules and regulations. But the theory of the 5
statute, he can start immediately upon filing his application.
f MR. PEDERSEN:
And the fact that we may have deter-6 7
mined his plant is outside the envelope would be part of his i
i 8
own risk?
9 MR.SHAPAR: That is right, he might have to fill 0
j in the hole.
There is no change.
a 11 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Not really all that much 12 change from the present situation given an LWA.
I MR. S HAPAR:
The LWA contemplates you have done the N5PA review.
5 Here we are saying you have done most of the 1
16 NEPA review.
i I7 MR. CASE:
The only difference is the need for
]
18 power question has not been made.
We are really saying 4
1 j
19 the facility is a general type that will fit in this 20 site.
Whether this precise facility does or not you don't 21 know at the LWA stage.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I will tell you, I am not f
much concerned about what appears to be a trifle cavalier 23 24 eduh und MMM g & MMug, ham h h
- 4ce red 2rei n. porter, inc.-
25 inconceivable to me that we will not write implementing rules
76 1
which will specify that where the guy files a CP for a site 2
which has had an early site review, then before he can dig up, 3
why there will have to be some kind of a checking off that 4
indeed the design will conform with the envelope and so on.
5 And I suspect furthermore, that we won't be happy --
6 that we will have to make some' checkoff finding before he can 7
go tear things up.
8 MR. PEDERSEN : In effect you will have a mini-9 review of sorts?
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I'm inclined to think so.
11 Furthermore,he is not likely to get out too far in 12 front of us --
13 MR. CASE: Just from an orderly construction 14 '
standpoint.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
because he can'.t become 16 an applicant until we accept the docket.
And until he is an 17 applicant, why he cia ' t prepare the approved site and perform 18 such limited construct;on activities as the Commission may 19 by rule and regulation determine.
20 So there are lots of gates in front of him.
Is that a reading of applicant?
22 MR. SHAPAR: It is a fair reading, but to be secure 23 about'it, I would simply write a rule, I would assume,that 24 applicant means a person whose application has been filed.
\\ce FMxral Reporters, Inc, i 25 MR. FILLEY:
Is there any particular objection to
.-,.es y
77 I
the concept of saying that before a guy can go ahead,he has 2
to have in hand a state need for power determination?
3 MR. SHAPAR: We discussed this briefly at the last 4
meeting.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think in some cases that 6
certificate may come enough later so that the state schedules 7
may bring that certificate out at a later point.
8 MR..KELLEY: Well tk! concern I am raising -- I am 9
not stating a position, I am stating a concern -- you go out 10 there and you clear the site, you knock down the trees and 11 they don't need the plant now.
And there may be some who 12 say, well, giving the state the right to make that determinatior.
13 is fine,but it ought to be made by somebody before you clear 14 the site.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: He can't start clearing up 16 the place and knocking down trees until some time as he has 17 got some kind of authorization from us.
18 MR. SHAPAR: No, no.
19 This says that if he submits an application to 20 build a plant, and the site is preapproved, upon filing the 21 application subject to reasonable rules -- meaning docketing 22 the application -- he can start to construct. But only for 23 the site preparation and minor construction.
24 MR. DENTON2 It is completely analogous with our ice 4educi Reporters, Inc.
25 LWA procedure.
He should have at that point a certificate i
1
i l-78 a
I of need in hand.
I 1
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Right.
l 3
It would seem to me that at --
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Do we know whether that is prac-1 1
j 5
tical at that stage?
6 MR. DENTON: Well, if he is spending money without 7
having it, if he runs into the problem we discussed earlier i
j 8
of whether it goes' to the rate base or not --
i I
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, it probably doesn't go into j
10 his rate base anyway unless it is a state where they allow Il construction in progress to go in, and I am not sure that is j
U2 not an idea whose time has come and gone.
13 MR. SH4 PAR:
I should say that this particular Id provision attracted no criticism when this bill ran the gamut 15
}
two,three times, which is not to say these aren't valid 16 questions.
i I7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It just shows the searching nature
[
18 of the review we are now performing on a document so casually l9 passed around by our predecossors.
i 20 Good heavens, what sort of a slack-review did you i
d Tellows do?
I 22 l (Laughter.)
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don'.t know what they did.
24 (Laughter.)
Ace FCdcrat Reporters, tric.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If there were a need for power --
l
79 1
if there could be a need for power determination, that would 2
be very tidy.
3 But, I would not like to see things hung up because 4
in many states this comes on down the line and is not issued
]
5 until there has been all kinds of other things.
6 MR. DENTON:
I guess my perception was that after 1
7 the early site approval was made eight years earlier, during t
8 that intervening time he would be appearing for the local agency 9
and;.once he had obtained the certificate, at that time he 10 would be filing with us to actually go ahead.
11 MR. SHAPAR: It may work out that way, it may not.
12 MR. RYAN: We have no requirement in here that we 13 have to have a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity 14 '
before we go ahead.
j 15 MR. DENTON:
That is right, but he would not have 16 to wait to file with us before ue files with PUC.
1 17 COMMISSIONER G1LINSKY:
I mean it is quite a leap 18 to go from NRC determining the need for power to pretty much 19 going ahead without any determination.
I mean, it is one 20 thing to move it out there --
21 MR. SHAPAR:
But it is only a limited amount of 22 i work he can do, and then he has to stop.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask you this:
24 Can the state pass a law holding him up or ars Ac..reemi %.orteri, inc.
25 they precluded from doing this?
i l
80 1
MR. SHAPAR:
I would have said, until about a 2
month or two ago, yes if they did it on any grounds other than 3
radiological health a:.d safety.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now it is just any grounds.
5 MR. SHAPAR:
Now it is just any grounds.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So in other words, if the 7
state wants to --
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think they clearly can.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
they could say, no one 10 may start to clear grounds until --
11 MR. SHAPAR: New York State says that now, I guess, 12 Remember when we discussed the joint hearings, it was clear 13 they 'could not start to dig the ground in New York under they 14 new New York State Statute, until they had approval from 15 both New York State and NRC.
They couldn't dig the dirt.
i 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I will tell you, because of the 17 uncertainty of the provisions of the 50 states with regard 18 to when the certificates normally issue and would issue in a 19 sequence, I would prefer at the moment not to attempt to 20 build some sort of language in here, but expect to see it as 21 part of the set rules that we would in due time --
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aren't we in effect 23 propping the federal requirement for need for power finding?
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That may be with -- yes, I Ace-Fedstet Reporters, Inc.
25 think the answer is clearly yes with regard tothe limited, l
81 1
at-his-own-risk construction that this provision allows.
Not 2
with regard to the construction and operation of a nuclear power 3
plant, but with regard to the construction, limited construction 4
authorized.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Does it say here that he has 6
to have a state certificab to get any special permit?
7 MR. SHAPAR:
No, it doesn't say that.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So why dre you saying, why 9
do you limit that --
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Because this only allows him to i
11 go so far in construction, aid puts it at his risk.
12 MR. SHAPAR:
We are not absolving any of our NEPA 13 responsibilities. ihere NEPA responsibilities have been defined 14 by the Courts in Calvert Cliffs, we have to do a cost-benefit 15 balance for the construction of the plant.
And part of the 16 NEPA review will have been done in connection with the --
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I see.
What you are 18 saying, if the state --
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
This is not a CP that he gets 20 for free, this is just a little dig in the dirt.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
At some point we are going 22 to have to go through this NEPA balance, and we will have to 23 have in hand a state finding that the power is needed.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We will have to do the NEPA
' Ace Fedwal Reporters, Inc.
25 balance in some form.
82 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You re saying no.
Why?
2 MR. KELLEY:
I have got problems with this, the 3
course of this discussion.
l 4
For one thing, to say he only does a little bit, 5
site clearance is the name of the game from the environmental 6
standpoint.
Once you have knocked down a tree, you may as well 7
forget it.
8 So I think from the NEPA analysis standpoint, that 9
is a pretty significant step to be taking.
10 I thought the way this was written, if you are 11 going to preapprove a site and bank it, you are saying in 12 effect, this site is okay for a B&W 9500, providing you can show 13 a need for power.
I thought this was the way this was structured.
i 14 Now we don't necessarily have to have a need for i
i 15 power, and the criticism I think can be made that an early 16 site review with a NEPA type analysis, including a look at 17 alternatives, will result in a determination by us that that 18 site is okay for a B&W 9500.
And when the guy comes in and
~
19 files his paper, he can knock down the trees.
20 And I raise the question, maybe that is the result 21 you want, but I raise the question --
22 MR. SHAPAR:
I think there may be a misunderstanding.
23 Let me try and lay out what the statute does, and then I guess 24 we can decide.
,\\cs Fedif al Reporters, Inc.
25
83 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You mean what this Draft does?
2 EMR. SHAPAR: Yes, what this Draft does.
3 This Draft says that if.you take a preapproved site 4
and you submit an application for a construction permit applica-5 tion, you can do limited excavation, site preparation, limited 6
construction at that site.
7 At the time the site --
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: This is more or less equivalent 9
to our existing LWA procedure?
10 MR. SHAPAR: Yes.
11 More or less, but there are changes.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Okay.
13 MR. SHAPAR: Now in' order for him to have achieved 14 his, or received his site permit, he will have gone through a 15 complete NEPA review minus the need for power, since very few i
16 people, if any, can determine need for power let's say ten years 17 in advance of the time he knows --
i 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, basically assuming 19 the need for power, isn't that right?
20 MR. SHAPAR:
It-just doesn't deal with it.
It is j
l 21 a NEPA review with a need for power analysis.
22 Or assumes it.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Assumes it is better language.
1 24 MR. KELLEY: Some day you will need a plant.
Ace Fodsval Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I tell you what, since the hour
4 4
84 I
has now advanced, please, on page 17 down there, halfway down i
2 paragraph B, inthemargin,putaquestio[arkandsay, unwritten need for power, and another questio[ ark.
3 4
Okay?
5 And who are going to be the best people to tell us 6
whether state certificates are apt to be forthcoming at this 7
time?-
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why shouldn't the states fix 9
up their process, if we are -- (Inaudible.) -- and they are i
10 going to get to decide the need for power pretty much --
II (Inaudible.)
Why shouldn't they put their house in order?
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: One reason is that there are fq 13 50 legislatures involved, I suppose.
[
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, we are turning it over Id r
15 to them.
I0 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The tendency will be for them 17 to do that.
18 I think what will happen will be --
I9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: When do you issue in Maine?
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, the utility can choose 21 between coming to us as the first step in the process, and --
22 coming to us as I then was -- and coming to us as I now am,-
23 the NRC.
24 As a practical matter, historically, they.would co Fedtesi Reportns, Inc.
25 always come to the state first because it was cheaper.
If
85 I
they came to us and we rejected them, they would only have 2
maybe $100,000 sunk in the application.
3 Then they would go on to you.
And that made a lot 4
more sense than going to you and spending $5 million, and 5
then coming to the State Commission and losing out on the --
6 so historically the need for power determination gets made 7
before they file the formal construction permit application.
8 Not necessarily before they get into discussion, 9
but certainly before they really get into hearings.
10 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: Before they get to hearings, NRC 7 b a,
$ 11 harrm7 12 But before they would file an NRC application.
r 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
In Maine, on the last--
_, 14 (Inaudible. )--the nevegEcting file, they decided to go to 15 coal instead, but at the time when they were still going to 16 go nuclear, they were going to get their state permit first 17 and then file with the NRC.
18 MR. SHAPAR: That would not be true in New York, 19 for example.
It is the opposite.
20 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE : It would be very nice to clean 21 up the need for power question before he got off and running 22.on his limited construction activities, okay.
23 On the other hand, if inclusion in the statute of 24 a requirement of that kind in effect says, paragraph B is of kes Fedsral T4eporters, Inc.
25 no ' practical value anywhere in the land, then I am afraid we v
-r-n v
c
86 1
haven't done well by the. drafting of the legislation.
2 MR KELLEY: We should find the answer to the 3
question.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And what I ask is, who should be 5
tolled off to poke and find out what --
6 MR. CASE:
I think as Commissioner Bradford says, 7
what you do or don 't do today may not -- is not dispositive.
8 of what 'they do and may not do when you have such a requirement.
9 MR. DENTON: At the moment, since they don't need 10 it when we do the;need for power review, they do it at their 11 convenie nce, but on a different schedule.
12 I think if they wer required, they would just
(
13 turn in --
14 MR. CASE: It would be interesting information, but i
15 I don't know how useful it would be.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: As a practical matter, 17 the National Association of Utilities Commissioners compiled 18 an awful lot of information like.this.
I don't know if 19 they have that or not, that is, how many states have laws 20 requiring public needs and necessities and where in the process 21 do they kick in.
22 It might be worth a call to them at least to ask.
23 Since we are technicalW members of NAUC they might assemble 24 it for us.
- Aco Fedstal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. RYAN:
I don't know what that information.would l
t 7
v y
--t y
c y
6.rpa.i e
.+
-*=
87 1
give us though, if we had that at hand.
I think there are 2
tables that they would have, but what good would it do us.
3 COMMISSDNER GILINSKY:
It would be interesting if 4
most of them do it early, in which case you are dealing with S
the exceptions, and would it be all that much of a problem 6
for those to move.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
8 It clearly would enhance the attractiveness of Jeb c
~' 3 9 the paragraph to at lest some present, if one were able to 10 put in such a provision as fixing the need for power, I
determining the need for power before you got to dig up the 12 l site. Because that would amount then, to having completed 13 the full NEPA reviews.
We now do it in te LWA.
dh sfld The quatron is, can you do that and not have 15 effectively negated the paragraph?
16 Would you please, consulting with Commissioner 17 Bradford as to sources, places, touch bases with a few --
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think you clearly know l9 the one I have in mind. -- (Inaudible.)
20 MR. RYAN:
Paul Rogers --
2I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Keeping in mind that the 23 configuration that we have in mind here is, suppose there 24 were these provisions to early site hearings, at which you
.e Fedital Reporters, Inc.
25 would do all of the NEPA review except the need for power;
88 I
now the utility thinks it ought to build a plant, knows that 2
j it has to S.le an application with NRC and with the Public j
3 Service Commission, is it practical and normal and reasonable i
l d
for things like a Certificate of Necessity to issue about the j
5 same time.that they would, the utility would file the l
l 6
construction permit aapplication with NRC?
4 7
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you typically-have to 8
get a state permit to clear a site?
i 9
MR. SHAPAR: What?
i 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
To clear a site?
ll j
MR. SHAPAR: To clear a site?
12 I wouldn't think so.
I know in New York you do --
l t'
13 I think.
I think the New York statute is very strict.
I Id MR. CASE:
Right.
t 15 It varies from state to state as to what you can 16 find.
.i I7 Let me point out that I N9uld Construe the authority 4
i 18 in the statutes to be broad enough to enable you by rulemaking 19 to require such a.need for power.
3 i
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Oh, I think there is no question 21 that by rulemaking we could cure whatever concern there is 22 here.
23 I am just wondering whether it can go cleaner than 24 that and just go into the base statutes.
, co Fadiral Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think the answer to
89 i
Vic's question is probably yes, at'least half the states now, 2
that they have some kind of a pool process for major industrial 3
projects.
4 If you just wanted to clear 100 acres of land for 5
a farm, I don't know.
6 But if you wanted to clear 100 acres of la."d 1
l 7
preparatory for a major power plant --
8 CRAIRMAN EENDRIE: Smaething that was later going to I
9 be licensed by'the state in some form.
)
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: -- that you couldn't go 11 that far towards building a project that was going to require a 12 state license without getting some kind of approval.
d 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
i j
14 Having sent off a mission to state programs, let i
j 15 us quit on this subject for the moment, okay, with a final 2
1 i
16 note that over there -- going back to my visit yesterday to 17 the new Post Office Building, they wanted to know who they 4
18 can touch base with, an expert in how you work -- you know, i
1 19 the health and safety side of this site review end of things.
i 20 They_are trying to make some scenarios, and see who would be
]
j 21 what to whom at what time under early site reviews and 22 standard options.
~
23 And I told them to call Harold Denton, is that 24 okay?
- &FM$ral Reporters, inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
l I
90 I
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I want to keep them informed.
4 All right.
Good.
5 Now, we are hardly an hour and five minutes late.
6 Let us turn to this five-minute item on New Mexico.
7 MR. KELLEY:
I am advised by my Sunshine expert 8
that we don' t have to take this, you can do it by minutes as l
9 an on-the-record review.
1 10 You can tape it if you want to.
You have a prefer-I ence. We can have minutes taken by the secretary, we can I2 record it.
13
(
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I would prefer that we do it with 14 minutes by the secretary. I am fundamentally opposed to tapes.
15 Would somebody then make a determination for us 16 on Sunshine with regard to this --
I7 MR. KELLEY: With regard to the transcript of the 18 meeting just concluded, I would advise you that it falls I9 within Exemption 9(b) as a legislative strategy discussion 20 and is withholdable until the statute is enacted, or until 21 the end of the present Congress.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
23 Same provision we have used on all of the othcrs.
24 Okay, so ordered.
WFedital Repor'ters, Inc.
25 j
i
4 91 1
On, to New Mexico.
(2 (Whereupo[n, at 5:00 p.m.,
the hearing in the 3
above-entitled matter was adjourned.)
4 i
S 6
-l i
7 8
j 9
10 11 12
(
13
+
14 1-15 16 l
17 18 19 20 21 i
22 23 24 I
Ace Fedtral Reporters, Inc.
25 l
2