ML20148T715

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of 770824 NRC Meeting on Licensing Reform
ML20148T715
Person / Time
Issue date: 08/24/1977
From: Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7812060036
Download: ML20148T715 (61)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- UNITED STATES /pu atouq'o,. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [ "< g WASLINGTON, D. C. 20555

7 2;

p Novembcr 27, 1978 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY COMMISSION DETERMINATION REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE UNDER THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT OF: Transcript of Licensing Reform August 24, 1977 On September 14, 1977 and pursuant to 10 CFR 9.108(c) the Commission, by unanimous vote and on the advice of the General Counsel, determined that the subject transcript should be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR 9.10 4 (a) (9 ) and (b) (3) until the bill becomes law or until the end of the current Congress, at which time the Commission would then determine if the subject transcript or any portion thereof shall be withheld from the public. Following the adjournment of the 95th Congress, the Secretary of the Commission, upon the advice of the Office of the General Counsel and after consulting with the Commission, determined that the subject transcript should be released in its entirety to the public, pursuant to 10 CPR 9.108(c). L amuel J. %!.lk Commission Secretary of thej 7 0h IL A

l E RC'- ~ 4571

  • ~

1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~. 1 ') 2 A MEETING' u 3 t Licensing Reform f-

g 0

5 i 6 7 Board' Room-Atomic Energy Commission 8 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 9 ' AUG 2 41977 10 The, commission met'at-3:17 p.m., Chairman Joseph { 11 M. Hendrie presiding. j 12 PRESENT: f (~- 13 Joseph M. Hendrie, Chairman Peter A. Bradford 14 Victor-Gilinsky j] Richard T. Kennedy' 15 16 17 18 NOTE: 19 The initials appearing in the lefthand margin indicating corrections i.e. J.B., are those of Jake Brown, 20 Office of the Secretary. 0 'tNY (kb p/gly; y3 I EE k ! $5=lNeporters.$,c. 444 M. Capitol Street (Suite 40u, 23 WasNngton, D. C. 20091 g 24 Ace Federst Reporters, Inc. - 25 -i i w. 4+-,,.- m, .c*1,,, ,.py, .y -w,,,m..p.,,--,_w m ,,,x,,, -,,.,. w.-,e,,v,,,i, w e.--~,,- e v r,. r<,-,-.- ,,, +

2 I EEEEEEElEEE 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Ladies and gentlemen, if we 3 may convene, please. 4 I am going to leave the body in one hour and two 5 minutes. The last time I left, I could hear the laughing and 6 joking and carrying on going all the way up the hall. So 7 heaven only-knows what will happen next. 8 Before we get started on this with round 27 of the 9 licensing reform process, the Commission needs to recognize 10 the need for some meetings and some votes and so on. 11 Tomorrow, we have got research. And, let's see, 12 I probably have an obsolete sheet. What else'is on besides ~

(~'

13 research? 14 MR. CHILK: Research in two sections. You have 15 the research in a closed session, and then you have got the 16 research in an open session. (*.h+HC' KENNEDY : g2 17 In that order? I would have thought j 18 ,it would be the other way around. 19 MR. CHILK: Research in open session, j 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, 9:00 a.m. l-I 21 Yes, tomorrow, we have research in an open session, 22 an open session policy session, a short one on secretariat 23 paper 77425. That is clearance for one of our congressional 24 leaders. Then, for the rest of the morning, a closed session Ace Fedwet Reporters, Inc. 25 on marking up some more of the budget. I I n - -.........,--n-,, ---..n ,,...,.~-n ,r

3 l 1 So that will keep us pretty well out of mischief j 2 tomorrow morning, it seems to me. 3 At 1:30, we start back in on budget markup. [ And I would also like to -- I keep being an optimist 4 and hoping that that may go more swif tly than it probably 5 will -- see if we could have an additional meeting tomorrow 6 afternoon, probably the last thing in the afternoon, to dis-7 Wss some personnel matters. 8 I would ask you to agree with me that we have j 9 f)gh-]. / pg jo this meeting. And I would like to have it closed and, in o' i 11 fact, limited to the Commissioners and to their tape recorder. L 12 MR., CHI,LK : We devote the whole -- bMW t p 13 MR'.4 KENNEDY: Do we get to tape record personnel --- t n i 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I'm afraid we do everything'. i 15 Now, what to do with the tape is a matter that we i 16 ought to discuss after we have had the meeting. { 17 MR. KELLEY: In an adjudication, you take the 18 minutes. You don't have to have a transcript, but you do in / 19 Personnel. The statute says so. h I

  1. KENNEDY:

The lawyers take care of themselves. {, 20 4 j 21 That's what it says. I 22 MR. KELLEY: Oh, well, true. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: .Anyway, after we have had the 23 24 meeting, we can reflect upon what we have said to one another Ace Fedird Remrters, Inc. 25 and see whether we want to keep the tapes. We have to keep. 1 a .a -r y.

=.. - - 4 [ 1 a tape. The secretary has to know where it is, but, indeed, 2 one of us could' lock it in his. desk drawer for two years as f long as he was careful not to.put gaps on it and one thing 3 ( and another like that. 4 i Or we could ask the secretary simply to lock it 5 6 up. l 7 Okay. Anyway, I ask you for a vote to hold said \\ i 8 meeting tomorrow afternoon on personnel matters. Those in \\ \\ 9 favor? 10 (Chorus of " Ayes.") \\!, 11 I vote obviously in favor. C 12 And I ask you to please vote to close. Those in Oi j R.J ' i; 13 favor? b{ 14 (Chorus of " Ayes.") 1 i 15 So ordered. i l 16 On Friday morning, we are scheduled again for 17 continuation of the budget markup. I would like to keep that. I t 18 on the schedule in case we need the time, but to take a chunk,. 19 take the last hour of the morning if we might, and consider 1 20 the Carolina Power and. Light Company request to move fuel i 21 from -- they are running out of storage pool room, and that 22 will be a public meeting. 23 It is paper 403 from the secretariat. And they i -,n.,f,....,24 are really -- s pa 25 GILINSKY: This is Friday? - -........ ~... - - -... - _.., - - - _. -,..

5 4 i l 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why ds that a Commission i i 2 decision? [a OM 3 VOICET4 A, becauses it is the first of a kind. 4 And B, because there has to be a waiver of Price l l 5 Anderson -- one of your regulations don't hold (inaudible). l i 6 MR. SHAPAR: Isn't it' involving a change in the 7 rule? II ()h. w 8 VOICE: 4 It involves extension of Price Anderson to a AuW f 39 what has in tht past been regarded as4(inaudible). It's a 10 discretionary exercise on the Commission's authority to 11 cxtend Price Anderson to other than a reactor license itself. 12 MR. SHAPAR: Does it involve rule-making? f N0LS ( y213 VOIe&: 4 No. SHAPpR: No rule change at all? 14 MR. (n. f CLA1Lh , 15 VOICE: 4 I don't think so in the present form. 16 MR. SHAPAR: It is the first of its kind, I guess. 17 or close to the first of its kind. Something you would want 18 to look at. hi* 19 MR. KENNEDY: It's clearly Price Anderson aspects, 20 precedent. 21 MR. SHAPAR: And it's a significant matter in terms 22 of using the discretionary authority provided in the Price 23 Anderson Act. l 24 I think that the conclusion is foreordained in my Ace Fed:rsl Fieporters, Inc. f 25 opinion as to what the decision should be. There is no

~. 6 t e l 1 argument about it, at least:up to now. But I think you ought j ] 2 to consider it because of its optics and everything1else. 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Because of the short time, I ( believe we have to vote to hold. And I would ask you to so r 4 5 vote. I 6 (Chorus of " Ayes.".) 7 - MRzg KENNEDY: Why does it have to be held on Friday? 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So ordered. 3 9 Well, because that's the first open slot that I can { 10 see to squeeze it in here. We are really in a sweat,. literally. 'erov bl qKENNEDY: There is no opportunity to do this [p, !" 12 next week? 7 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Next week, we are hoping' to have f (( 14 a Commission meeting day on Thursday, September first. &]Athw 0 15 . MR KENNEDY: If it is imperative we meet on Friday 16 on the issue, then we must. { 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now, let's see. Sam, if we i \\ 18 finish the budget markup so we don't have that session, it 19 would be nice to do this and then not be tied down. I 20 Would it be okay then to schedule this for 9:00 21 o' clock, put it first, rather than second, and schedule it for 22 9:00 o' clock? And then if we need budget markup time, have 23 a break and ga,ther in full session, would.that be satisfactory? 0M W M -24 -+HT.4 KENNEDY: Open meeting. Are Fedirst Report ,Inc. l25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: An open meeting, yes. e e-

l 7 i 1 And now, do we need to say anything about a meeting l f 2 next Thursday? 3 MR. CHILK: No, except I would just like to remind ( f all of you that we are holding September the first open. I 4 I 5 would like you to hold your calendars open for a possible 6 meeting if we need it. 7 I think I have talked to all of you about it. B We won't know the subjects for another day or two. / 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I have a notion we ought 10 to list as a subject discussion of the draft legislation. I I i 11 have a feeling with the. budget markups all interspersed and l j i 12 our discussion thist evening, we will go about another 45 or 13 50 minutes, that we are likely to want some time. [{ 14 And the drafters of Draft 2 or the proprietors of 15 Draft 2 would like to have comments by the 29th which is 16 Monday. In our circumstances, I find that a little difficult. 17 And I think we will need the Thursday session. 18 We will just have to wait. 1 19 If we wanted to talk about legislation on Friday l 1 i 20 morning, will that be possible or would we have to -- 21 MR. CHILK: This Friday morning? [ 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. ( do N-o b - @ 23 MR. CHILK: You have b vote the whnlo I4nanaihla), &mht +w 24 . ME*.4 KENNEDY: Why don't we tentatively schedule one Ace Fedarti fleport s,Inc. 25 and -- i r

8 i .f. 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don' t we put it there and ' l 2 not use-it if we, don't need it? Okay? ~), "f5 ,MR.'GILINSKY: Bank it. -h 4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Bank it. Bank our meetings.: . I'/ n 'S Okay? 'All'right, Fridaf morning for. legislation Ih 6 and vote to'close. 7 -4tft' KENNEDY: Fine. Good. 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Good. We have done it. 9 MR..KELLEY: I just raise a question about the 10 legislation. If you are shooting for comment on the legislation, 11 if not the 29th, close'to it, I think it is tough to give 12 very detailed drafting comments in that kind of time turnaround. 13 We can try if'that's what you want. I don't know if ihat's l E (~ 14 what you want or whether you are pointing toward a letter 15 that endorses concepts'or something in between. 16 But it is a complex piece of legislation. 17 There is also sort of an option-closing feature. 18 MR. SHAPAR: I think if the Commission were to fix 19 on the substantive areas, the main substantive areas, the 20 drafting can go very quickly. 21 MR. KELLEY: Pardon me? ~22 MR. SHAPAR: I said, if the Commission could fix ( 23 on the direction they ~ want to go on the, I would say, six or l 24 seven key substantive areas, I would think the draf ting' ' Ace FedIrel Fleporters, Inc, ,25 could go very, very quickly.

9 4 )I JERg GILINSKY: Probably what we want~is redrafting 2 'of the bill? ~ 3 MR. SHAPAR: Redrafting of the bill in accordance ( 4 . with the decisions you all make. 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Or, well, I think the first thing 6 to do is to try to get clear in our own minds the direction 7 we would like to go on these assorted points. Okay? 8 MR. KELLEY: Yes. 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If we can do that, by a miracle, 10 do it by Friday, we could so indicate to the Administration 11 early next week. At least'an outline of where we want to go. ~! 12 And hopefully, in any event, soon after Thursday, 13 the first of September, we could send a letter over sa'ying, { 14 "Here is the direction we think you ought to go on item 1, l 15 2, 3, 4, et cetera, et cetera." 16 Proposals from us for specific language in-the 17 legislation, then if they were ready, okay, and if they weren't, I 18 that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world because that 19 could come along and be included in the testimony that we 20 inevitably will be asked to give to assorted committees on both 21 sides of the Congress. 22 And whether we could get it inserted into the k i 23 version of the bill that the Administration wants to present 24 to Congress very soon after it returns depends on sort of Ate Fedtral Heporters, Inc. 25 how fast we do it and how early they want to prepare that . fx A d

10 l 1 ~ version. 2 But it might very well get in. But even if it 3 didn't, we could arrive with testimony with recommended .h 4 language. 5 MR. SHAPAR: I would like to point ou'. a diiwn side 6 to that. There is a lot of bad drafting in the bil1~. I 7 mean drafting that will cause unnecessary and unintended 8 difficulties. I think all other things being equal, it would 1 9 not be in the best situation to have this agency propose 10 changes during the legislative arean because then everything 11 is frenzied, and everybody else is making comment proposals. I 12 If you all can agree on a bill, I am not saying this 13 is necessary possible, but it is desirable. If you (11 can 14 agree on a bill you all want to support, I think it would be 15 desirable in my opinion to have language that you are all 16 satisfied with as quickly as possible and present that as a 17 Commission position. 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I fully agree. If we can get 19 it done, that's great. And if it turns out that we can't 20 get agreed on language, then we will have to simply indicate 21 the direction we want to go and then language to arrive later. 22 It may also be that the proprietors of Draft 2 will 23 find that they don't really need to arrive on the steps.of the 24 Congress September 7 with Draft 3, but will have a few days. Are Fedtrst F4eporters, Inc. 25 MR. SHAPAR: Originally, they said it would slip y

11 i 1 one to two weeks from the originally intended date of the rf74 2 -ttnith of September. 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:,That would be very helpful, in 4 fact, and allow, I think, a better proposal to go up to the 5 Congress. 6 A4R.4 GILINSKY: Maybe that will slip.another week. 7 MR. SHAPAR: But they have to have a bill. They 8 have to have OMB circulate and have critical comment or others i 9 comment from the other members of the Executive Branch. b p BRADFORD: 4 It may slip quite a long time. And 0 11 I would guess what would happen is a lot of the eople who wp% p n,& are enthusiastic about Draf t l / M"' ibid. M Oge. 12 A J.( 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, people that like Draft 1 14 may hate Draft 2. It is sort of which side of the house is 15 smiling and which, side is frowning. OnM BRADF RD: It makes it fairly hard to actually p 16 M T /t.c Ar-,.u Im-17 agree to submit a billg(2--"A "'a). 18 MR. SHAPAR: The problem now is the Administration 19 in thrashing around on a bill which they haven't coalesced 20 on. And the comments that you send back will be part of that 21 process. And that is the difficulty in terms of the time I 22 frame you have. 23 But the only point I am making is a very limited -24 one. If you do know the kind of a bill you want to support, I Ace Fedtral Reporters, Inc. 25 you ought to have the backup of the best drafting the whole c1:.j %#2@.

1 12 l 1 staff can give you as quickly as possible. 2 MR. KELLEY: That's a nice goal, but I just want 3 you to know we are new to this bill, and I will just ~ tell you i (- 4 flat, next week, I'm not going to be ready to sign off on any 5 bill that is anything like this in terms of saying, " Yeah, 6 that's fine." Because we are not going to be there. It is 7 not possible. 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I recognize the problem. 9 Now, in order to deal with -- 0 ~~~ MfC KENNEDY: I didn't realize until I just read (3 10 4 11 something that this set up a statutory office within the 12 Commission of State Programs. f( 13 CHAI,RMAN HENDRIE: Yes. 1 OW y MR14 KENNEDY: I didn't realize that. There are 14 s 15 all kinds of little tidbits stuck in. 16 CHAIRMAN HENDR7E: There are all kinds of little 17 goddies, and I think that is one of the things Howard means 18 when he says there are some things he doesn't like in it and 19 that Jim is worried about trying to accomplish. 20 Now, look, we need a way to compile a check list 21 of these nits and nats as well as the major issues. How shall 22 we make that up? 23 Ken, did you want to be a collector of nits and 24 nats? Ace Fedsrst Reporters, Inc. 25 The point is we have had a lot of paper from the y " ?O d

  • 5l

13 - 1, 1 1 offices that say, you know, "here is a sentence " You had a -2 number of'these things inlyour comments on Draft 2.--Okay? 3 I found myself scurrying through a great mound of 4 paper, starting to make myself a handwritten list of all of 5 these things so I got everybody's and decided, wait a minute, 6 maybe we could get somebody to do this for us. 7 MR. PEDERSEN: Some fog eye. 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, some handy office of the 9 Commission. 10 MR. SHAPAR: The nits and nats are going to follow 11 the substantive decisions. E I % 12 M GILINSKY: It is not a matter of spmebody A

{

13 naking 14 MR. SHAPAR: But to some extent they will; to some 15 extent they won't. O 16 You are right. 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And, by the way, this list needs i i 18 to include draft omissions as well as commissions. 19 I notice there are some things that have gone from j 20 it that we might like to consider that should from our stand-21 point usefully,be in it. / 22 MfC GILINSKY: Are we going to at some point con-4 . k. b & 0(n hu p& & O23 sider basic ingredients ofA(inaudible). A g } 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think we ought to check these Ace Fedtrol Fteporters, Inc. 25 . things off and see that, indeed, we agree or if we disagree, ~,....-,,-,---n.-.-, .,,,-,m.,,,- ,.wawc

14 + 4 1 as to what the dimensions are and try to understand what this 2 language says or what changed language we would prefer. 3 I think that applies right on down the list. . 4 Adr.4 GILINSKY: Also what are we trying to do with 5 this bill? It is pretty clear what the Administration intended 6 with the first bill. It is less clear what they intended with 7 the second bill. 8 It is not at all clear what our objectives are. 9 CHAIRfiAN HENDRIE: I perceive our objectives to be 10 to obtain finally the statutory basis for early site decisions 11 and the standard design sequence and the marrying of these 1 12 two as an arrangement of our affairs which in a decade may (~ 13 be of enormous advantage. ) 14 It won't have much short-term effect, but for the 15 long range. 16 The Commission has tried in previous years to move 17 this sort of legislation, and I think here is a grand oppor-18 tunity to do it. So that is clearly one objective. 19 A second one is to similarly carry along some of 20 the legislative initiative that we have tried, some of them 21 going back, my God, many years, like relieving the ACRS of the 22 requirement to review every confounded application willy-23 nilly. 24 And I suspect there are some other. things of that AOFC:lceal Reporters, Inc. 25 kind people could think of. So it is sort of minor items, but 1 4 r w,..

15 t here is a chance to collect them up and get them together. j 2 In terms of newer initiatives, I would like to see 3 a statutory basis come out of this for'us to be able to ( accept the findings of public utility commissions or whatever. 4 5 other appropriate bodies there are in the states on the need-6 for power question on an application. And while we are at it 7 to be able to accept whatever else of the land use and environ-8 mental review process agiven state is willing, able and anxious 9 to take over for itself and to give us a basis to cut an agree-10 ment with them and to do that. 11 But at least, the need for power. And I really 12 think it needs to be spelled out in legislation. If we try 13 to do that by rule or something like that, why, I think we . (' 14 will be in a court until the Supreme Court. '15 On other portions of the bill, the question of 16 whether or not it is useful for 41s to establish publicly 17 announced target dates and then have some modest statutory 18 authority to, you know, berate our fellow agencies who don't 19 move as fast as we would like, well, I guess my view is "why 20 not". 21 I doubt that it will seriously degrade the process, 22 and it might even be of some modest help to us in encouraging 23 people to make timely determinations in these processes. 24 I think that's about it. Ace Fedtral Reporters, Inc. 25 Now, will that satisfy the objective of nuclear u 4. p

3g e t 1 plant construction where judged appropriate and reasonable and 2 safe and all the rest of it in five or six years? Obviously 3 not. 4 The relation is, at least in the near term, ten, 5 fif teen years out when maybe there are some sites that have 6 been banked and some designs that are pretty fully approved. [ 7 Then, indeed, it may -- c3 8 EDY: If the bill continues to be written, 9 sites that are banked won't be any good in ten or fifteen 10 years. 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, we'll t'ake the ten years f

  1. g 12 off it.

QW ig money in the bank 13 M.4 GILINSKY: Te f( 14 ten or fifteen year,s later? 15 Well, it may be with that in view 7 16 that they put this in. 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And that's about as good as -- 18 If I had anything in mind which would be magic and still 19 would preserve the elements of due process that I think are l 1 20 important to the system, I would suggest them. But if you 21 really want to go gung-ho with building plants, you can 22 declare, boy, this is a great national emergency, and everybody 23 shut up and grab a shovel and start digging the excavation, 24 never mind discussions about whether it is needed or Aes5edIrel Reporters, Inc. 25 e:nvironmentally sound or safe or anything else. ' ^ 4

17 I think that's not a direction which I would care j to support or see the Commission support. 2 So, now, where shall we go by way of a profitable 3 ( half-hour discussion? a MR. DIRCKS: It might be good just to take the main 5 six or seven items and how we can mention them and get a list 6 7 that people would agree to in critical parts of it. $8 Mri KENNEDY: Something that would help me, following our discussion yesterday, looking at Draft 2, describe the 9 10 hearing process that it proposes in the various aspects of 11 that process. MR. SHAPAR: The major change, of course, between 12 the most recent draft and Draft 1 would be OE. In the context { 13 ja of your question is that all hearings under the most recent draft would be the same trial type adjudicatory hearings that 15 16 we have now in our process. 17 Now,,you ought to remember, the easiest way -- Dw@" 18

  1. 4 KENNEDY:

All hearings? 19 MR.,SHAPAR: All licensing hearings. hm++ 20 M4 KENNEDY: All licensing? MR. SHAPAR: All licensing hearings. 21 % 22 + ME 4 KENNEDY: Would be adjudicatory. (. r 23 MR. SHAPAR: Yes. 24 I am trying to stay away from detail like export Aes-Fedtral Reporters, Inc. 25 licensing where there is still a problem, but I want to be as 3

18 1 direct as I can. C 7 2 ,$2t.4 KENNEDY: Talking about plant licensing. 3 MR. SHAPAR: Yes..The easiest way for me to thread 4 through this complex piece of legislation is to use a term that 5 I used before -- three tracks. I think I will do-that. It's 6 the easiest way to understand it. 7 Track one of the present system with certain modi-8 fications like improvements on ACRS review and stuff like 1 9 that. Okay. 10 Track two is a combined CP and OL. That speaks for 11 itself. Up to now, the wall licensing hearings, adjudicatory. 12 type, complete back-off from the first DOE version. ) {^ 13 Trapk three is the combined, where you marry -- 14 MR(q GILINSKY: Let me ask a question. The applicant 15 would state when he comes in, he is seeking a combined CP and 16 OL? 17 MR. SHAPAR: Yes. 18 -NE.g GILINSKY: In other words, he doesn't come in 19 and then we say, "Well, you don't have quite enough for a ) 20 combined CP and OL, you get a CP," or what? 21 MR. SHAPAR: You would be writing the rules. iw 22 MR.4 GILINSKY: (inaudible) 23 MR. SHAPAR: You, of course, Mr. Commissioner, would 24 be writing the rules to implement this generic concept. But Aes Futml Reporters, Inc, 25 I think the thought clearly is that if he vants a combined 4-t'$ O' k Nf i .1

19 z 1 CP and OL, he has got to declare his hand in his application. 2 If he doesn't ask for'it, he doesn't get it. I 3 A.4 GILINSKY: I suppose we have (inaudible). 4 MR. SHAPAR: The theory of it is that under the 5 present system, you submit in effect a preliminary design for 6 the CP and final design for the OL. The theory is if he can 7 satisfy all our requirements for both the CP and OL, including 8 the final design, then he ought to get both. jf]a fn 9 ulo.ICB4 Subject to inspection; the plant has been 10 built this way, obviously, 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Anybody that is ingenious enough 12 within the next decade to get himself a combined CP and OL 13 deserves some sort of accolade for his prowess. I'd be willing p{ 14 to -- 15 MR. SHAPAR: I do remember that Lou -- 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I tell you what -- we will give 17 him a copy of ou,r flag or something like that. 18 )4R.4 KENNEDY: Which one? 19 MR. SHAPAR: Both. 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, the agency flag. I assume 21 he has the national one. QwO~ 22 M!r.A KENNEDY: That is the reason for my question. 23 You will have to ask Mr. Gilinsky which agency flag. 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Oh, I see. Ats Fedtrol Reporters, Inc, y 25 Jeft. BRADFORD: The combination of the CP and the OL i s - -

i 20' 4 L j is perceived as being ' essential to either early siting or 16e 2 standard plant? 3 MR. SHAPAR: I would say no. ( 4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It's a sort of a peripheral 5 thing, looking forward to a day when we might have standardized 6 sufficiently, for instance, each vendor on a nuclear steam 7 supply'and also adopt a favorite architect / engineer so that 8 each one could have a balance of plant design that is also 9 fully standardized to-the extent you can do that. 10 And.we have just seen a whole series of the Mark 23 l 11 plant come through and said, " Gee, why are we bothering to do 12 a CP.and then a subsequent OL? They all look alike. Why l 13 don't we just issue a combined CP and OL." (( 14 It is to allow for that possibility, but I -think 15 we are many years from such a stage if, indeed, it should ever i 16 be. 17 It doesn't hurt to have it, but it isn' t what I-18 would call very important. l}$A 0^ sL h19 A@dt2h 4 I'think it might be closer than that, 20 Mr. Chairman. It might be within ten. 21 I ag more optimistic than you. h## (j22 JHr.4 GILINSKY: Well, it's also kind of mild encouragement.O M 23 %a %. ' 24 JZOJGIh4 Yes, to move in that direction. - Acefedutt Rerwters, Inc. .25 CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE: That's right. It's a middle-sized ? w' A Y ,-s

21 j carrot to say, "If you go ahead and get your CP stage infor-2 mation sufficiently well developed so we can talk about it as 3 a final design with all of the an'alyses fully developed and ( 4 so on, then there is a bonus in being able to do that." 5 But as far as being essential for or very important, 6 no. 7 -ME.( BRADFORD : What is an operating license pro-8 cedure, the bulk of it, beyond simply being a matter of check- -h k k W, Y 01w-AA!& o 9 ing to see whether the4(in=udibic), @p, 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: He starts in a couple of years 11 before he is going to get the thing, and he files a complete 12 new set of paper,s from scratch. 0 13 M R*3 BRADFORD: But isn't the end result supposed f{ 14 to be,in certain cases, the plant in fact is operable? 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, among other things. 'fp 16 RRg BRADFORD: And wasn't the construction permit L \\ N wnE]idY ld 17 supposed to be a permission to build the plant tinaudibic) ?, 4 h-ww 18 - MR -(GILINSKY : The trouble is the construction 19 Permit is on the basis of -- 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Preliminary. 0W ($ 21 MR GILINSKY: -- really pretty sketchy design of the g l P ant. 22 C 7/h b 23 M4 Design criteria and not even all preliminary Arefedml Reporters, inc. 25 . -MR A GILINSKY: The applicant comes in for the . e y_.g, h(

l 22 ) s I construction permit. In fact, the applicant uses that time to i 2 start the design of the plant in an engineering sense. 3 I mean, you know, they know where the plant is ( 4 going to be and like that. 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So it isn't until operating 6 license time when his design is p esumably final, although you 7 get an OL application in which you ask for the analysis of 8 the performance of a certain system. And he sheepishly explains 9 they haven't quite got all that nailed down yet. C &' BRADFORD: , MR.4 All right, what we are really talking %) 10 11 about is in terms of construction permit / operating license 12 situation, but more and more things get moved back to what is 13 now our operating licenses and come before the construction [] 14 permit. 15 What my concern is that there should still be some-16 thing in the end called an operating license. It may be very 17 simplified. \\g 18 .MK'. 4 KENNEDY : This would be a particularly useful 19 device if what he was doing was using a standard plant 20 design, something that had already been through standard plant l 21 review. Because he would have an almost complete systen 22 design before he ever came in to ask for his construction j(' 23 permit. 24 MR. SHAPAR: Under the latest draft of the bill, I Ats Fedrrxl Reporters, Inc. 25 if my memory serves me correctly, they can only use the u ~4W ?

23 combined CP and OL with a standardized design. That was not I 2 in the original,NRC bill. + 3 MK.(GILINSKY: That's why I raised the point about b our having a discussion on this. I think there has to be 4 5 something at the end. I think Ed was indicating that there would be. 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. In any case, there is a 7 8 thorough set of inspections that verify it, indeed, is con-9 structed as advertised. g 10 E gBRADFORD: So that whether or not at the end 11 of that you actually got a piece of paper called an operating 12 license or something else -- 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Oh, yes. f{ hs. OasJ'-- N4 What you get at'the first stage is % 14 i 15 authorization to issue an operating license if it has been 16 constructed in accordance with the application. WN W 17 .Mr. 4 BRADFORD: Is this under the bill now, Ed, or 18 is this under present -- ~l}$A W 19 ^ VOICE:( Under the bill. I would assume it would be 20 the same way, don't you, Howard? b4 21 J R.(BRADFORD: What you are really talking about 22 is a construction permit and an authorization to issue an k 23 operating _ license, or to receive an operating license. Qp.. .v 24 ,,,MR"'4 GILINSKY: I think you're not going to go to Ace Fedtral Repor trs, Inc. 25 the two-stage process. You are not going to simply have two e s $l

24 4 L 1 sets of ten volumes each and all of that. 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Right. But I think what Peter 3 is reaching for is that what he submits in the beginning is ( 4 an application for combined. He does not get a piece of 5 paper that says "this is a license to operate." C )6 GILINSKY: He can't load fuel. .g I 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: He can't' load fuel. He doesn't 8 get that until he has built it and there have been inspections 9 that verify it meets the requirements. And then and then only 10 does he get the operating license. 11 MR. SHAPAR: Beyond that, there has to be a public 12 notice put out with a limited opportunity for a hearing before (} 13 it can go into operation. W- ) -MR'.4 GILINSKY:. In fact, perhaps one ought not to 14 15 call this a combined CP and OL. 16 CHAIRMAN HENDJ Well, that's the point of getting 17 it. ea 't) 18 MR'. 4 GILINSKY: But the operating license ought to 19 be the license that let's you load fuel. And that is some-20 thing you ought to get after some other kind of process. i 21 Maybe much simpler than it is now, but still verifies the 22 plant is as advertised. k. 23 And if you want to call this thing something else -- 24 MR. SHAPAR: Of course, your regulations could say Acs Federtl Reporters, Inc. 25 that they cannot, not withstanding the fact it is called a l W , s,g u >

25 j combined CP and OL -- and I assume the regulations would say 2 just this -- until the public notice has gone out with 3 opportunity for hearing,-until the staff has satisfied itself ( the plant has been built as advertised and whatever other 4 5 conditions you want to throw out, is a matter of rule-making. 6 They can't go into operation. 7 Those are two other options that you might want to 8 e nsider 9 EK.{GILINSKY: You might want to just call them 10 something else. 11 MR. SH,APAR : You might want to. py D k ^^ h 9 p, 12 EA GILINSKY: -(incudible)- q 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Those who survey the specific ,'{ 14 language of the bill, please have in mind the thrust of this 15 discussion to make sure that what is said about the combined 16 whatever it ends up being called -- the language of the draft 17 legislation agrees with the thrust of this discussion. l i 18 I think we are pretty much all in agreement.

Now, l

19 the question is: is that what the bill says? i 20 MR. KELLEY: Sometimec, it is hard to tell. hn W l l 21 c--MRg BRADFORD: What you are really talking about is 22 an operating license proceeding which doesn't permit you to l (~ 23 relitigate the construction permit issue unless there is good 24 cause shows and, in fact, that the operating license becomes Are<Fedtral Fieporters, Inc. 25 nothing more really than an inspection because your constructior, y n.+

26 1 1 Permit proceeding has been entirely.much more thorough than 2 it is now. 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Has been on a final design. Qb (,- 4 A4R7 BRADFORD: Yes. 4 g5 Mn GILINSKY: But I just can't imagine you are O 6 going to build a plant even if you have got final drawings, 7 everything, go into a process that takes several years, and 'i 8 not have some departures from that. KENNEDY: Would you visualize a. full hearing at 9 4tfC4 10 that point? .MICqGILINSKY: No, but there will be something 11 12 you will want to do. 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Unless there are barge-mounted f-(~ 14 plants with a perfectly' standard mooring system, that in their 15 land-based plants, there are inevitable differences that arise 16 in specific sites of'which they are located, and there "ain't" 17 no way to -- b# 18 .A410 4 GILINSKY: Just a lot of things turn up. 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So I don't think it would be a 20 much used provision, but we have had this kind of language 21 hanging around off and~on for some time, an~d it's a shame not 22 to use it. k 23 How about that? Does that sound like a good basis 24 for legislation? -- Ace.reerro neporters, inc. g d-p.4 KENNEDY: It is one of things that concerns 25 f - A

27 me that I mentioned the other day. I'm afraid, very much j afraid, that whatever comes out of it that somebody is going 2 _to think it is going to do something it is.just not going to 3 ( do. That is going to have a worse effect than not doing 4 anything at all. 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I'm afraid that's already 6 inevitably a part of the -- If we get some kind of a' bill and 7 get it passed, why, indeed, that will be the impression in 8 some quarters that it is going to be a great miracle and 9 PeoP e are going to'say, "What happened to the miracle?" i l 10 jj ,Mr.g KENNEDY: Some panacea for all problems which 12 the next day turn up again. I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And if it doesn't get passed, 13 14 the same people go around saying, " Boy, if you had only passed i 15 that bill, all these problems would have been solved." b X BRADFORD: Let me ask another ignorant question. 4 J 16 j7 How is it that in various countries people (inaudible). Cnu-h 18 OM KENNEDY: That's when you start running the T ,? 19 clock for one thing. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: One of the things that they do 20 21 that helps considerably is to -- or until the last year or l 22 two -- buy U. S. designed plants and say to themselves, "This k must be pretty good because those fellows on the regulatory 23 24 staff have shaken it down pretty well," and they go ahead and Aco Fedtrst Fleporters, Inc. 25 do a review concurrently with the construction and sort of y[y;

-28 0 1 independent. 2 That is, the guy is constructing the plant furiously 1 3 over here, and over in'some other place, another city, there is ( a little staff which is looking through the papers and saying, 4 5 "Well, okay, if they say so," and so on. It is not a very '6 strong review in those circumstances. 7 And they come then toward the operation of the 8 plant, and the regulators have got a few items that they 9 would like to see changed or cleaned up, the plant operator 10 argues with them, and they compromise, and that's that. ff NK.g GILINSKY: Actually, some of their contracts 12 actually state that this is to be a duplicate of a plant which 13 has already been approved here. And then, as Joe says, they p{ 14 don't do a, great deal with it. l 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What you notice is that in the 16 countries that now have noticeably muscular, in a technical 17 and professional attainment sense -- beginning to have regu-18 latory staffs with some appreciable manpower and the ability 19 to do things, wind up with the process going slowly right 20 down. b# 21 .J4Rf GILINSKY: The Japanese have just flipped their 4 q 22 (inaudible). They now have a separate regulatory agency. (~ 23 CHAIRMILN HENDRIE: Give it two years, and they will 24 be at -- 4 Ace Fedsrst Reporters, Inc. y 25 JRgGILINSKY : No, they are up to about 12 years, o i ll ..z. ej -gy;w

f.'.

.. ~, ..m.

29 J 1 I think. ( 2 MR.4 KENNEDY: I was about to add another factor in 3 some of those cases, and it certainly was true of the Japanese, ( and that may say something about what you just noted, it is 4 5 simply a fact that labor productivity in the construction 'P ase of this thing is higher in a lot of places than it is h 6 7 in this country. It's a fact. O v me ' MR',gGILINSKY: Ye's. That's i-many ways 4Tinaudible). 8 e

    • )

9 JNt.4 KENNEDY: That can add a year or two. Percentage : 10 wise, that's not all that great. But when one puts it in 11 annual terms, it's pretty great. 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is also useful to consider 13 that in the late fif ties, Stone and Webster in the Westinghouse {^ 14 Corporation built Yankee Row in 40 and a couple months -- 15 construction schedule -- ground braking to start up -- on 16 schedule, within budget. C w-17 RgBRADFORD: Did they have the permits right at 18 the beginning? 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The same as now. 20 MR. GOSSICK: Duane Arnold was even bigger and his 21 was, what, 42? 22 -MR'.4 GILINSKY: But they are typically like 90 23 months, or 95. l 24 MR. GOSSICK: They average something over 75. f a FMirst Reporters, ine. J 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So there is clearly in the !, [#,' - ib

30 construction itself a lot of room for improvement, at least I 2 as much as there is in the regulatory process. 3 Unfortunately, we regulate and don't construct ( so we just have to stick to our side of it. 4 5 Okay, you were going to finish Track three, and that 6 will probably -- y,. O# 7 M4 I wanted to point out the subissue under 8 the CP and OL is whether you want to tie it to the standard i 9 plant as the present version of the bill does or make it 10 equally applicable to custom. 11 It is a ca. rot to standardization. 2 b-12 M GILINSKY: Well, you know, this word "standar-g 13 dized plant" it seems to me is a misnomer. What we are really f{ 14 talking about is a plant for which you have complete design. 15 It doesn't matter whether you are building one of them or 16 25 of them. You have an approved design. Onn 17 -MR~g KENNEDY: Approved design? b) M 4 u#" p, 18 GILINSKY: Yes. Cw 19 JiW. 4 BRADFORD: Why don't we have approved designs 20 already? s O n " KY: AtR.4 GILINS Well, we are doing that. We are 21 22 doing that. ( 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't see any particular 24 reason. I don't think it's an important provision. So it is Ace-Feditel Reporters, Inc. l 25 not worth much. But I don't see any reason to limit it just -.l -. r

31 1 to standard, so-called standard, plants. 2 I think you are quite right, if a man-thinks he has 3 a final design for the machine he is going to build, it's an ( interesting option for him to consider. 4 5 M4 KENNEDY: I don't know whether it would 6 actually show up to now an act of a real time savings. But 7 the most recent SNPPS plant approval was an example of.the kind 8 of regulatory improvement, if you will, that can be cheap. 9 It turned out that there were no questions or an insignificant 10 number of questions required by the staff because they had 11 already reviewed the plant design in detail and approved the 12 design. 13 They came in and referenced that design and, -{ 14 therefore, was not subject to another extensive review. So 15 if he was starting, you see, and he started counting from 16 the time he filed his application with the reference to that 17 plant, the amount of time it took to get his approval for 18 construction permit was a lot less. i 19 Isn't that correct? y s.OM 20 N :( If you could take the last of the SNRES 21 .. you can't even make that type of claim. 22 Mft. gBRADFORD: What is SNPPS? J ( es.4 ~ .J4R KENNEDY: Standardized Nuclear Power Plant 23 24 System. Ace Fedtral Reporters, Inc. 25 .MFt:g GILINSKY: It's a group of utilities building 1 j ..n_

32 b ofI new plants p---(inmidible) 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: One of these days, we will go 3 out to Gaithersburg and look at the model if they have still ( 4 got it out there. - W -4tRT GILINSKY: It really is worth going through. 5 1 4 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And you get un ear full of the 7 Bechtel story. - s 8 MIh BRADFORD: What part of the country? 9 .ER.4 KSNNEDY: They are all over the country -- 10 _ Kansas, New York. 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, we are going to finish 12 ' Track three. .{ 13 MR. SHAPAR: Track three is where you marry a pre-14 approved site with a pre-approved design. And that brings 15 about a really limited opportunity for hearing at the con-16 struction permit stage and the issue I think I described at 17 the first meeting, essentially whether or not the original 18 design approval still serves a useful purpose in the particular 19 circumstances of this case. 20 But even with that limited issue which followed 21 the NRC bill, it would be an adjudicatory type proceeding. 22 By the way, under the NRC bill, it need not have 23 been. Under the NRC bill, although the limited issue would 24 have been essentially the same, there would be some flexibility Ace Fedirst Reporters, Inc. 25 to backoff somewhere, and ill-defined, from the full 4 O--

. a. .._ w. e 6 33-P j adjudicatory hearing requirements, but this bill does not. l This bill, as I read it, would provide for' full 2 3 adjudicatory-type hearing.- ( So'to answer your question in onefsentence, after-4 5 .having given this preparatory explanation, any hearing on a i 6 licensing for a nuclear power reactor is al-3.djudicatory-type 7 hearing. And'there is no backoff-from that at all. 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Do you know why the language 9 in Draft 2 -- and I assume'that Draft 1 is the same -- doesn't~ 10 use the Commission's previous proposal in this area:for-11 legislation exactly, but, instead, has this modest -- 12 MR. SHAPAR: Change in respect to the standard. 13 design for combined CP and OL? I think I do. I think you [. ({- + 14 are quite correct. 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There and in the loss of whatever i 16 minor flexibility there may have been in the form of the 17 hearing like the early site plus a standard design. 18 MR. SHAPAR: Point by point, I think the idea of 19 restricting the use of the combined CP and OL, the situation s 20 where you had a pre-approved design, was to hold out the + 21 incentive of a' combined CP and OL to urge people to standardize 22 their designs. (' 23 I'm sure that's what the thinking was over there. 24 With respect to other changes of the backoff from ' Aco Fedml Hemrtm, Inc.. I 25 the full adjudicatory situation on the Track three, we have . -. %:5 w s,

34 l I a marriage of a pre-approved site and pre-approved design. 2 I guess, and here I'm speculating, and it's nothing but 3 speculation, that having tried to get away from adjudicatory (- 4 hearings completely and run into a buzz saw,_they were gun shy. l l 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I must say I don't see off-k 6 hand why we should not recommend use of the language that the 7 Commission has considered before, thought well of, and pro-8 posed for these measures. Nw 9 MR".) KENNEDY: Proposed not once, but successively. 10 MR. SHAPAR: However, there is an important factor 11 of another change they made. 12 As I. recall, the original when we started -- there p{ 13 is one thing that goes in the other direction. And that is 14 that under the current version of the DOE bill, a standardized 15 design can be approved by rule-making without any hearing 16 whatever hewvwM# 17 JR'.r GILINSKY : It seems to me that your idea has -- 18 MR. SHpAR: You are mixing apples and oranges. 19 MR'.( GILINSKY : -- had a thorough hearing at the 20 earlier stage. 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. A" ('* d t p ' 22 Mf.4 KENNEDY: Which is where the hearing belongs 23 anyway. s* W# w+>M GILINSKY : Since you are doing it at an early %67 24 Ji 4 Acefectorst Repor :ers, Inc. 25 point, there is no excuse for not doing it right.

35 MR. SHAPAR: That's exactly right. You can only j get the full advantage of Track three and the limited hearing 2 and less than an adjudicatory hearing on Track three if there 3 was an opportunity for a full adjudicatory hearing on approval 4 5 of design. So in both-those respects, the DOE bill is different 6 than most recent versions. It would allow you to approve a 7 standardized diesign and push it into Track three even though 8 you only allowed written notice and comment on the rule-9 10 making proceeding which approved the rule. And that is not 1 11 the original NRC bill. 12 These are all issues for you. And it's a complicated. 13 piece of legislation. ,(' 3 s ) ja _NRy4 BRADFORD: Why is there ever an advantage to 15 dealing with these things in a rule-making-type hearing as 16 distinguished from using an adjudicatory hearing in which 17 you limit the issues to new issues or issues on which new evidence is available? 18 19 Rule-making hearings seem to me to be just essen-20 tially sloppy ways to get at facts. And when you are dealing 21 with a particular plant, it is essentially individual facts 22 and conclusions that you are interested in. l ( ^ I would think you would be better off just being 23 24 really strict as to what you let in, but keeping the hearing Ace Fedsral Reporters, Inc. 25 adjudicatory.

36 1 MR. SHAPAR: Well, the partial answer to your 2 question finds its roots in history. The NRC statute -- 3 and this has been adjudicated in the so-called Segal case -- 4 says that as far as the Commission's use of its rule-making 5 authority, it doesn't have to do anything other than issue i 1 6 notice and comment. There is no requirement for any hearing 7 whatever other than the opportunity for the public to submit 8 written comment. }) 9 MR.gGILINSKY: You can have a rule-making with -- 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Full-dress rights all around. 11 MR. SHAPAR: The Commission has the option, of 12

course,

.notwithstanding the legal situation I just described 13 on its own to order a full adjudicatory hearing on rule-p{ 14 making which in effect it did in the GESMO proceeding -- not 15 the GESMO proceeding, but the ECCS or something less. 16 And the Commission has indeed -- bb 17 .J4R'. (KENNEDY : It chose not to do that in the GESMO 18 Proceeding for a number of re asons related to the experience 19 with ECCS. 20 MR. SHAPAR: Exactly right. 21 And the Commission has experimented with in between 22 situations, too. k h" 23 h4h KENNEDY: Like the GESMO. 4 24 MR. SHAPAR: Exactly. Or a pure legislative-type . Ace.Fedtest Reporters, Inc. ~ 25 hearing which it essentially did in connection with as low 4 m -.m- .,w- -- r wr r r +..,.-w-e m. 4.er, ^

37 I low as practicable, and waste. 2 MR. KELLEY: As I understand the GESMO setup, you 3 can trigger right across, showing across, if necessary -- ( 4 MR. SHAPAR: GESMO is another hybrid. GESMO starts 5 off legislative type, but if someone can show a need to 6 develop further facts by additional procedures, the Commission y retains the authority to move into the adjudicatory mode on 8 selective issues. cf) 9 Jef.4 KENNEDY: Following the conclusion of the i 10 legislative phase. 11 MR. SHAPAR: Yes. 12 That, I think, is the answer to your question. 13 That, I think, rounds up the discussion in answer to [ {' 14 your precise question about the adjudicatory. OP . MRf KENNEDY:- It seems to me one of the questions we (y 15 A 16 really ought to be thinking a little bit more about is the 17 approach to the standardized design, standardized plant, which. 18 comes so early in the process, indeed, it ought for all 19 practical purposes to have preceded the licensing process, 20 if it rea)1y made sense, and thus would not be in any way on.a 21 critical path with. the licensing of a given plant. t 22 It would seem to me that. there is the place to ( 23 have put the full-scale effort. Then one can limit the kind 24 of participation to certain specific issues later on in the Am FMust Resmrters, inc. 25 specific plant situation, I think with reasonable I

] 38' l 1 justification. 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Ed, do you want to speculate 3 'on the practicalities of approving a standard design and a 4 full adjudicatory hearing? $n.Cm 5 ^10 ICE : 4 No. I think it is going to be difficult 6 because it is a rule-making proceeding. It is-going to take 7 ' time, and you are going to have the issue. And I don't know 8 how to deal with it. 9 Things are going to be happening in the meantime, 10 changes in the regulatory requirements. Some of them may or 11 may not be significant. How do you introduce those into the 12 process? G, )g{ }) 13 MR.4 GILINSKY: What you are doing is raising 14 questions about standard design. lEn fact, somebody ought to 15 write down what a definition of the standard nuclear power 16 reactor design is. Because it says here in the bill it is 17 in the national interests to encourage them. 18 What does it mean? y n. %& f 19 Veleth4 I don't know whether that means the whole 20 plant or DOE and NSF.-- MMe" } 3 21 ,JHyg GILINSKY: Usually bills have served definition 22 and -- 23 MR. SRAPAR: I think there is another answer to 24 that qusstion. If you have a standard design which is going - Ace Fedsrst Fleporters, Inc. 25 to be put on - the shelf, who is going to want to intervene w fil .__is.

39 without knowing that that nice standard design is going' to ) 2 come visit his neighborhood? %3

  1. -( GILINSKY :

It may never get built. ( CHAIRMAN EZNDRIE: Well, the same thing is true on 4 5 applicant's side. I have a notion that vendors are not 6 gratuitously going to come forward and go through what may be 7 a very arduous hearing process to get an approval stamp on 8 the speculation that they may subsequently sell it. i I suspect what will happen is that tlie utility will 9 10 come along and award an order for a plant on which there is 11 a preliminary design approval or one under way. And that 12 will provide the incentive for the vendor to say, "How would j 13 you like to go into rule-making on this with me?" 14 And if the utility has got any sense, he will ~-hink 15 very carefully about that. 16 But I think there may be some difficulty in 17 accomplishing a set of banked designs as well as banked sites 18 for lack of somebody to pay the bill for doing the additional 19 analyses, paying the legal costs, and so on, while this thing 1 20 is in rule-making. ) h, Cn.o2.-- ,h 21 Vetern.Then, you have the question of time and how

2 long will it last versus how long does he have to spend in the k

23 process for getting it 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: For a particular utility, it is Ace Fed:rel Reporters, Inc. } 25 always the classic problem of finding a utility adventuresome _d' .h

40 i i i enough to move with the new feature in a plant.. Their interest j 2 is in tha particular plant, not in the ten units that might 3 follow it. l 4 And ' from their standpoint, why not just go custom 5 and do as well as they can on their particular plant? Why 6 assume the additional burden of new features and new processes 7 and so on?. i 8 MR. SHAPAR: So the additional burdens must have a a 9 concomitant incentive. I guess that is what you were talking 10 about. 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, yes. And I don't see 12 that they do have any incentive. y t.Ce -(

  • 3 13 NG4tTMs The incentive comes when there is a lot of 14 them coming through and neither they nor we have the staff 15 to devote to changes in each one.

16 MR. SHAPAR: And the other possible incentive 17 is a really quick review at the CP stage when the marriage j 18 takes place. That is the main incentive, both in terms of i 19 the -- from the industry standpoing -- 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If I may, if, indeed, the vendor 21 won't go forward on his own to carry the rule-making burden, 22 and get the design approved, from a utility standpoint, what 23 he has got to do one CP hearing. And why should he do a 24 tough one to get the rule established if you are then going Ace Fed ral Reporters, Inc. 25 to give him a cheap one to get the CP. m

[ 41 1 He could do one medium-shed one and get where he 2 wants to go. 3 A KENNEDY: But in fact, haven't they? Vendors 4 have come in and actually gone through this process. n.c-5 VOTCETg But not the rule-making process, the staff 6 Part of it. p7 J r.4GILINSKY: But they have gone through the effort 8 of FBAs some of which have'never been used. 9 MR. SHAPAR: That, of course, in the present system 10 is merely a staff approval, and it is up for grabs in the 11 hearing process. y n. CL# > 12 -VOI{Ehg The reaction I get from the vendors now (( 13 is unless they have a pigeon, they won't do it. 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We used to argue about this -- %W p 15 -VOIeET, Unless they have clout. ow p 16 E gKENNEDY: I don't understand that. Well, I 17 don't know. What percentage of the effort involved have they 18 already committed when they have gone through the PDA phase? 19 It seems to me a very high percentage. ,20 6 GILINSKY: I don't think so because they haven't 4 21 done any detailed engineering. 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There would be many more. things l that would be brought up in the hearing collaborative base. f 23 24 And there is an additional liability in the hearing process . Ace Fedrest Fleporters, Inc. 25 .that we never found a way to deal with. .. ~.,...., _. ~.. _... _. ~. .s-..

-. e -- a - s .s 42 l 1 I can remember arguing about it years ago. And that 2 is I am a vendor. I.come'to you, and I have got a PDA on 3 my design No. 6. Fine. I would sell design No. 6, and I 4 sell it to a batch of utilities; each one goes through an 5 individual hearing process. 6 If I take my design No. 6 and come to the Commission 7 for a rule-making, we now start the rule-making, guess what 8 happens to my design No. 6 in all these other proceedings 9 while there is a rule-making on the thing. 10 I have great concern that all of those proceedings 11 now come to a dead stop until the rule-making is completed. 12 And I am very reluctant to put my customers over here at 13 liability on their individual hearings while what may be a { ({ 14 two or three-year rule-making hearing goes forward. 0 M-15 MRg GILINSKY: Well, this raises questions about 16 whether -- 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't know how to deal with 18 that. (V,J4R$w+" 4 GILINSKY: They ought to be supplying you with 2 19 4 20 No. 7 which they are not going to be selling for five years. 21 But it doesn ' t work that way. 22 Y: But that is what is conceptually here. C a jut 4 GILINSKY: What I am concerned about is this is )) 23 24 kind of a longer view of the way industry works. Ace Fad:ral Reporters, Inc. 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, but maybe it will turn out i -w:

~ 43 I better than I think. M A, O* n)2 dlGHECE14 If you try to devise a process the way the i 3 industry does work, you can't.get there from here. ( h 1 4 JiR4 BRADFORD: Of course, whether or not the 5 industry works,is the point. h,44# 1w 4 GILINSKY: What we are saying is we really want 6 7 them to come in with ten-year old designs. 8 A, do we really want that? 9 B, will they really do that? 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, they won't bece.use they 11 can't sell them., 0n 12 - MR' GILINSKY: So does the whole thing make sense? fn [{~ j 13 .VOICEq Standardization is a viable option in a 14 big-volume atmosphere, not in a three or four-year clip. Om4" 15 -44RQ GILINSKY: Are we just getting the standardizatic n 16 freaks off our back or what? 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That might be useful. Don't 18 knock it. 19 Look,, I think Ed really -- vvMw~~ C4 20 M KENNEDY: That is hardly the way to go about 4 i 21 that. 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: -- has the key to it. In the 23 present context with relatively few applications, I think the 24 vendors -- no utility is going to look very happily at being Aes Fed:rd Reporters, Inc, 25 the guy who carries the burden and puts up the dough for a

44 1 rule-making on the design. And the vendors are going to be 2 very reluctant to do it themselves. 3 Should the planning pace pick up substantially so 4 that people begin to be scratching once more for places on the 5 Pressure vessel plant list and places on the reg staff schedule 6 and so on? Then, I think out in the industry, there will be 7 a general recognition of the difficulties. 8 And I think at that time, then, indeed, you have a fair chance of finding one utility or maybe a couple who 9 10 would agree in the interests of all, they will shoulder the 11 burden and go forward with the rule-making to get this thing 12 in place. 0# 441C BRADFORD: That's possible. When it does l~{ Q) 13 4 4 J m h au %, uth b 14 happen, I wouldn't be at all surprised to4Rnaudi . -M - 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And that is quite possible. 16 In the meantime, I think it doesn't necessarily -- the fact 17 that there may not be a great rush to the Commission's door 18 to utilize these procedures immediately uponAauthori_at4 -g 19 legislation, I don't think that is necessarily a reason for 20 us to stand back and not do anything -- and not recommend 21 the legislation. 22 And I am going to slide off. Would you be chairman 23 in my absence? 24 I tell you, I make a recommendation. Why don't Ace-Fedoral Reporters, Inc. 25 you decide, and you have my proxy, whether you wouldn't like f u_

45 1 to go back to the previous Commission legislative' language 2 on these few-points in a combined CP and OL in a standard 3 plant,.maybe to -- 7 . (. - QpW aW Q 4 g BRADFORD: Have I = p% rctaad ' inaudible 5 I would find it very hard to decide on that without 6 having seen thq language. M GILINSKY: Well, let me see; I don't know how %7 4 I How did the previous language 8 far we have to go in this. 9 differ from the present one? 10 We went over that, Howard. 11 MR. SHAPAR: Do you want me to go over the original 12 bill, the DOE bill or the NRC bill?

  • 13 KY:

The NRC bill. { 14 MR. SHAPAR: Okay. Let me see if I can gather up 15 all the ends. I 16 No.1, the NRC bill, with respect to Track three 17 where you marry a pre-approved design and pre-approved site, 18 would have given you the advantage of the limited issue or I 19 would have given the utility the advantage of the limited 20 issue and the sort of truncated or smaller hearing at the 21 CP stage only if the approval' of the design and the approval 22 of the site had been after the opportunity for a adjudicatory 23 type proceeding. Okay? 24 KY: So there was no mention of rule-Ace.Fedirst Re rters, Inc. 25 making or anything like that. 4 ,_.a l

_-e n [ 46 MR. SHAPAR: Well, whether it was done by rule-j 2 making or by manufactgring license, in either case, there would 3 have had to have been an opportunity for adjudicatory-type ( hearing. And only then could you have the truncated issue 4 5 at the construction permit stage. 6 So that's different. 7 And the hearing in the NRC bill, in view of the j 8 Prior opportunity for a full adjudicatory proceeding could l l 9 have been something less than the full adjudicatory proceeding j 10 at the CP stage on Track three. 11 Difference No. 2. The NRC bill would say, in 12 connection with the operation of a plant, whether it was l )( 13 Pursuant to a combined CP and OL or just a plain old operating 14 license, that that operating license and amendments to 15 operating licenses could be issued after adjudicatory pro-16 ceeding. j 17 But the bill provided that if the Commission made 18 a public-interest determination or a need-for-power determination,! 19 it varied, depending on which way your are talking about -- 20 but some sort of'public-interest determination -- in that 21 event, the hearing could take place af ter the issuance of 22 the operating license and the issuance of amendments to ( 23 operating license. 24 What that meant in the earlier bill was that if there Ace Feduct Reporters, Inc. 25 was a tremendous -- it wouldn't be a routine situation, but if Q

47 the Commission made that determination of a public interest j 2 or the need, the power, was needed or something like that, 3 depending on which version, then the hearing could take place ( after the fact. Which means the license could be revoked. 4 5 And there are all kinds of restrictions put on the license. 1 6 The differer..e, in response to your question, 7 between the regime I just described which was in the. old NRC bill and the last version of the DOE bill is the DOE bill 4 8 9 would extend that regime only to amendments to operating 10 licenses and not to the original operating license. , 11 Eft GILINSKY: I see, they had that in the first g 12 version, didn't they? 13 MR. SHAPAR: I think in the first version, they { 14 had both, and they cut back to just amendments to the second. 15 I'm not positive of that. g @M[ j.16 Y: Just ame dm ts - 4i 17 MR. PEDERSEN: That's right, they had (inaudible). A So that's another backoff. SpPAR: 18 MR. 19 I think those are the main differences that I can 20 recall between the -- W, WA, are there any others I missed? Marty 21 A 22 vv2xn 4 Not in the standardized design, really l ~ 23 site approval framework. R d 24 MR. SAPAR: Those are certainly the significant

m. m.,o.p.,.. ~.

25 ones. t

1 48 -l 07 e 1-y.4 GILINSKY: cLina.udiblub h] 2 MR. KELLEY: Just the further comment that the 3 present law on OL amendments without a hearing, planning.is ( 4 no hazard. So that's even tighter than what these (inaudible). 5 MR. SHAPAR: I don't follow that. 6 MR. KELLEY: You want an amendment to OL without 7 a hearing, you have to find there is no significant hazard. 8 MR. SHAPAR: That means you don't have to put out a 9 pre-notice is what the statute says. And you have got some i 10 case law on it which is somewhat ambiguous right now as to i 11 whether or not even if you didn't pre-notice it and someone 12 came in and asked for a hearing, would he be entitled to it' 13 ahead of time. ).{ 14 MR. KELLEY: Well, we have been around the bush on 15 .that one. (inaudible) That's what it boils down to. But you 16 don't have to have a hearing if there is no hazard. uSw f/17 MRqGILINSKY: Well, I don't know. Is there any 18 further discussion on that? n LW" 19 -Mitg KENNEDY: No. 0-#~~ 20 44Rn GILINSKY: We will go over to our next meeting. 21 MR. KELLEY: Could I raise a question about where 22 we are in terms of getting Ken a list of nits and nats and (' 23 major factors and omissions and so on? 24 MR. PEDERSEN: I was just sitting forward to Ace Fadzrst Reporters, Inc. { 25 suggest it would be extremely helpful if maybe your offices 1 __b

~ n --, 49 I can provide me with marked up copy or something that' I could 2 begin to collate. Whatever method you prefer. Marked up 3 copies are particularly useful. C' 0 4 R.4 GILINSKY:- One thing I would like to see is a 'I 5 definition of standard plant at least to see what it is we 6 'are talking about. 7 'Is there such a definition? Have we ever written 8 one'or does it simply mean something that has gone through 9 one of our tracks,-- O## 1 10 ,MR.3 KENNEDY: Some of it is in our rule. hA 0& 11 -VoIeET I don't think it is. 12 MR. SHAPAR: The remark I made, Commissioner, is { 13 that if they use language like that in the statute, of course, i 14 you could flesh it out any way you wanted to in rule-making 15 which is the nopnal, course of events. rrWV& 16 GILINSKY: Here we go saying that something is 17 in the national interest. And I think we ought to have some 18 idea of what it is we mean by that, what this animal is. Q Y >~'" c 19 BRADFORD: I think this is the same thing that 20 concerns me. (inaudible) 21 MR. GOSSICK: Well, didn't we define it in terms of 22 replication, reference design, policy statements? 'fflA h o -VOICEq But in different ways, methods of standard-3 24 izations. t Ace Fedirst Reporters, Inc. n,4gt,44,4fM j 25 __MRg GILINSKY : These are different ways to get m

50 a early approval. 2 MR, GOSSICK: Yes, the concept or philosophy. wnuMN & M ( GILINSKY: Right. Basically, we are trying 3-( to push applicants to do as much of the work as early as 4 5 Possible. That seems to me the point. And we don' t want to 6 be making decisions while people are pouring concrete. So 7 we don't either try to hold them up or get forced into 8 decisions we wouldn't otherwise make. 9 But I think this ought to get articulated somewhere. f 10 MR. GOSSICK: This is a policy statement that went 11 back (inaudible). g This is not something I think the Com-12 13 missioner wants to hear. I think what he wants to know is a { 14 standard lant BOP,or does it have to be the whole plant? WW 15 .+1T4 GILINSKY: Does it mean it is an absolutely 16 identical plant or does it mean a design which is frozen? Or 17 is there some flexibility? 18 Just what are we talking about or are we talking i 19 about -- is it a matter simply of having pre-designed, pre-20 approved plants or do we want runs of ten or twenty of them? 21 Does that make any difference? hfn MG p 22 VOICI:.3 I don't think anybody has ever faced all 23 those questions. 1 uwM ?.> 24 R GILINSKY: Since we are encouraging the industry 4 AcsJed:est Reporers, Inc. 25 to do something, we ought to know what it is we are encouraging ~~ w

51 ~ 1 them to do.OpM,# O KENNEDY: What it is we are encouraging them o2 4 3 to do. $a bad.L-(- ,4 VOICE :4 Do as best you can. Therefore, you don't 5 have to, you age not requiring them te do anything. ( *cnuswit"W 6 R GILINSKY: What is the question and what is the q 7 answer? 8 MR. KELLEY: There is a pattern in the act where 9 the act will talk about what special nuclear material and 10 various categories of things. But it says it is what the 11 Commission says it is by regulation. So they just give you a 12 general idea, and you go flesh it out. 0ndM ~ ,( 9 13 J4% KENNEDY: So what do we say it is? 14 MR. KELLEY: That is a possible approach; that's 15 all I'm sayin Kl(1 dA C 'h 16 VOICL] There have been efforts to define them in 17 other kinds of bills, but the definitions end up being appw.) t/u. G w W n G b ou d ~c/ /c The standard design i p-naudiMA~ 5 '"5 bw d 18 circular. Uew" u' 19 JRgKENNEDY: Which has a standard. Gemw# d 20 JiR-sgGILINSKY: Well, I think it ought to be then 21 defined in terms of we are trying to get plants designed and 22 approved well before they are being built. That's what we 23 mean by that. 24 Maybe " standard plant" is the wrong word. But I Ac3 Fed:ral Reporters, Inc. 25 think we ought to be clear on what it is we are trying to do, 4i 1 1

52 I what objective is being served by this, f A OM 2 VOICE:A I can see. Writing an objective bill along 3 those lines, but I can't see using that as a definition of a 4 standard plant,. M 5 ,MR.4GILINSKY: Why don't you try writing an 6 objective, and maybe that will take us part of the way. 7 okay, why don't we just push this to the next -- 8 MR.~KELLEY: I still don't have a time frame in 9 terms of comments or criticisms. As soon as possible, I guess, 10 is the request. But do you want it by Friday? hem 11 -MRg, KENNEDY: They want it' by, what, the 29th? CL # p 12 @.4 GILINSKY: We don't seem to be able to tell f{ 13 you this. 0mm!hW f14 MR3 KENNEDY: The 29th is Monday. Owww 15 J@.g GILINSKY: What other meetings do we have 16 scheduled?- ~ kunwW# 17 M f KENNEDY: Certainly, we ought to be able to give 18 them something before the end of the week. 0mmA' eh19 -MTrig GILINSKY : What other meetings do we have 20 scheduled the end of the week? 21 MR. CHILK: Are you talking about the week of the 22 29 th? (. 0,wwW 23 MR]GILINSKY: Yes. 24 MR. CHILK: I think the Chairman plans to settle it Ace Fsdiral Reporters, Inc. 25 by -- 'Y

~) .53 v .I' ' ~490. KENNEDY: He suggested a meeting; he suggested. 2 possibly maybe we'could resolve-something on the firstLwhich 3 is Thursday. And I would think that ought to be plenty of ( 4 time. 5 MR. PEDERSEN: Mr. Chairman, what we seem to be 6 missing is an' ability.to proceed issue by issue'in something 7 that kind of-scopes these' issues for us that we have looked .8 at and seen.. 'l 9 If we could identify the majorcissues and have 1 10 scoping statements, maybe comparing them to prior bills or. ) 11 prior --[ w ## $7 12 -MR'.(KENNEDY:

Well, I' don't know what kind of a 13 chore that turns out to be, but the kind of analysis that p{

14 was being done in'the very hurried,-but.nonetheless effective 1 15 way this afternoon by Howard, contrasting this with previous 16 NRC bills, is a very useful way. 17 We have spent an awful lot of time thinking about 18 the other ones and going over them before they were submitted.' 19 At least, we had a point of reference. And if one can con-20 trast in some effective.way these bills section by section l-L 21 with those original ones, I think that would be very helpful.. l 22-Howspuch'of a chore is that? - (. 0mnw ( 23 "7Dh GILINSKY: What sort of meetings do we have 24 scheduled on this subject for the rest of the week? Aes Fedird Reportersfinc. 25 MR. CHILK-On this subject? You have one on the ' * :; % -k ' N k_

~ 54-1 first. .hns M d n #q There was one you are talked about -V&ICEr: 2 GILINSKY: Are we dealing with this tomorrow? '3 A ( 4 MR. CHILK: I don't really know whether you are 5 dealing with it tomorrow. I question in my mind whether you 6 are going to have, time to deal with it tomorrow. CW 7 JR.4 G1LINSKY: What sort of a track are you on? 8 Are you putting together comments on'the version two? 9 MR. KELLEY: Not yet in a disciplined way. We 10 have read it; we have got a few pieces of paper kicking around 11 the office. We can go on whatever track we are asked to go on. 12 I just want to have a (inaudible) The more time we have got, 13 the more in-depth look s*. the bill we can give it. ).{ 14 We just have to make a judgment. It does seem to 15 me we have talked about the earlier NRC bill. Insofar as this 16 bill tracks the earlier bill, we may very well come to a 17 place where we can say "that's fine" and sign off on those 18 sections. Co. # 1 19 -MRy GILINSKY: I don't think we ought to blindly 20 follow the previous bill. 21 MR. KELLEY: No. ) 5-w ] h 22 -44Rr4GILINSKY: I would be more inclined to follow 23 the Chairman's comments at the outset as to what our general 24 objectives were. Aco Fedcect Fleporters, Inc. 25 MR.#KELLEY: I'm not making a reconimendation; I'm l $a n,m) n m.g

55 I b only offering,a possibility. j 0~w j 2 <MR.4 KENNEDY: I was only suggesting that one of the ways to see where we are is to look and see how this 3 ( relates to the NRC bill, things that we have already seen 4 before. 5 6

  1. *AGILINSKY:

Perhaps you can do that, Jim, sort of taking the Chairman's comments he made earlier, some of the 7 basic points one is interested in, and relate this bill to 8 those points and indicate what sort of changes might be 9 10 appropriate or alternatives, sort of start moving in that 11 direction. It would seem to me the statement he made was a 12 Mbf 13 pretty reasonable one. 4 5 Q S, 9 MR. BRADFORD: At some point,g(in?_"dibic) -The 34 15 agency is going to have to carry this out. What its actual 16 effect on license and licensing process'will be (inaudible) 0wsw& p j7 -Mit:n GILINSKY: It is going to be embarrassing. Joe also mentioned having a session when we go over 18 19 this line by line. 20 MR. CHILK: There is another session Friday A.M. 21 you voted on. s 22 Mft. (KENNEDY : This Friday, day after tommorrow?- 23 MR. CHILK: Yes. l M-24 94R.A GILINSKY: I would be inclined to adjourn ) Ac> Federal Reporters. Inc. 25 and discuss it with Joe precisely what we mean, how we go from ~

F 1 i 56 1 I here. ~ mW 2 d4R-(BRADFORD: I guess I would suggest at some 3 Point we actually delegate to somebody the job of leaving out ( 4 what (inaudible) 5 HRH KENNEDY: I think it is an extremely important 6 Point. W" f7 -MR~- ( GILINSKY : Actually Harold would probably be 8 -- having sort of done this study, would be in a position to 9 give some views on what the effect of the various provisions 10 would be and actually put it to practice? f n De$ew 11 --VOICER 4 We haven't done it yet. But we could 12 assume that the bill stays the same and try to work up some ) {~ 13 estimate of what would occur. (bmew-14 ddR.4 KENNEDY: I think that would be very useful. 0&#" 15 -MRrgGILINSKY: Is that something that could be done 16 in relatively shogt order? f]A. OnO m p 17 -VOICO:g I think it is speculative a bit. c -(.a )4f KENNEDY: Sure. 2 18 aa c 19 44A (GILINSKY : I think your thoughts on this would 20 be very useful., 0ew W M cp 21 -MR. 4 KENNEDY : The obvious question is: what are you 22 going to accomplish by all of this? And right now, it's not 23 cll that clear to me. The press says that this is a direct 24 response to the President's call for a tightening up and Acs FedIril Heporters, Inc. 25 improvement in the nuclear power plant licensing process. l

57 1 And that means to everybody, I think, in the press, 2 certainly, it is going to be shorter. Because they say, "you 3 know, the.t long, long drawn-out ten-year process," that every-( body thinks ought to be down, the President said, to seven or I 4 5 eight years. 6 Now, the question is, a logical one: what does 7 this accomplish? Everybody thinks that is what it is accom-8 Plishing, but is it? Om 9 -MR.4 GILINSKY : Actually, it is something that I 10 guess Howard ought to be involved in, too. But I think it is 11 important that NRR be involved. And you guys are actually 12 doing the reviews. 13 So it would be good if you take the lead on that. { 14 Could you do that? Could you have something in a week, your 15 thoughts on that? p1v G ~o-p16 eNGIem4 Yes, I would be glad to. ('o w & W Rg 17 -MR.4 GILINSKY: That would be good. 18 Does that give us enough time? 0w La c& p 19

e. KENNEDY:

Oh, I think so. If we had it at 20 next week at,this point, I think that would be all right. Om&& p 21 MR. GILINSKY: Even your speculations are a lot 22 better than other people's speculations. ( de Ow 'YO What version? e w, ICE / c i 23 ~~ (p 24 +Hh GILINSKY: Version 2. Ace Fedml ReporIm, Inc. p14 h4 25 Veteth 4 All right. I '4 'I'

I 'f, 58 1 M dGILINSKY: And we can then at some point actually 2 sort of march thro, ugh the bill. M 3 -MR.4 KENNEDY: They;gave us a section-by-section 4 analysis with the thing. 5 MR. PEDERSEN: We have got some alternative language 6 Proposed here we have to review, too. 7 MR. SHAPAR: Shall we hold up on the nit-picks 8 thing until we get further instructions from you? i p9 -MR. 4 GILINSKY: I think so. Y: I think identifying those kinds of p10 11 things, though -- every time one reads the thing, he finds 12 something else. As I think you pointed out much earlier' today. 13 We can get this in a beautiful condition philo-- { 14 sophically and have a catastrophe on your hands with all the 15 stuff that you are going to have to get amended in order to 16 live with it later on cimply because a lot of little things 17 didn't get cleared up. 18 MR. SHAPAR: Then we'll stay.away from the immediate i 19 or interim situation. We'll stay away from substance until 20 you decide how you want to handle the substantive policy and 21 me thodology. - And we'll go ahead and provide comments as 22 quickly as we can on nit-picking and drafting problems. 23 Is that the way you want to proceed? 24 MR.,(GILINSKY: Yes, I think we could do that. I A&Fedsrd Re rters,Inc ~25 think that we may want to change some of those, and.we' may do u 'i l' k !{it ANf

F 59 I I it differently, depending on how we come out on substance. 0mv h h "MRs KENNEDY: All this is going to do is just 2 3 identify them., N Y: I have got one omission which I would p4 S like to throw out. My pet concern is to change the name of 6 the ACRS. 7 MR. SHAPAR: Do you want to set a deadline for 8 Ken's receipt of these comments? p9 -MR qKENNEDY: I will agree with you right now that 10 is okay. 11 MR. PEDERSEN: Have we got anywhere a list, an 12 agreed-upon list, of what we consider to be the major issues I(( 13 we have to deal with? W'4 MR. GILINSKY: No, I think the point that Joe 6 J4 15 mentioned at the outset that concerned him that maybe you 16 ought to have a transcript, sort of the basic points of the 17, bill and the ones I think that we are most interested in. 18 MR. PEDERSEN: All right. I think when we get those 19 in writing and see them, it is going to help us affirm an 20 agenda. Because that's what I think we need to do. 0cm v 21 -MRy GILINSKY: That's what I asked Jim to -- }p) 22 MR. KELLEY: I tell you what we would do, we will 23 do it as fast as we can. Are we on a week turnaround with 24 Harold, or are we on Friday or Monday? When is this going Ac2.r.d:rci nenorteri, inc. 25 to be? O

60 o a' f .R. KENNEDY: Some of this stuff has to be done (g j 2 sequentially. Ce. #' 3 'MR'AGILINSKY: My own inclination is to take some ( time doing this, but do it right. 4 s S But I don't think we can get a sort of a full 6 review of thig thing by Friday. OvwvM"^' 7 MR.hKENNEDY: I don't either. 8 MR. KELLEY: Can we have until Monday, say? 0xn p9 44R.4GILINSKY: Yes. 10 ' inaudible) 11 All right. 12 (Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the meeting was 13 adjourned.) j ( j4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 k. 23 24 Arefederal Reporters, Inc. 25 1 a}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20148T715&oldid=4170209"