ML20196K464
| ML20196K464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/06/1979 |
| From: | NRC - ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION DURING ADJUDICATIO |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACCA, NUDOCS 9903260294 | |
| Download: ML20196K464 (51) | |
Text
_ _ - - - _ . _ _ _ - _ - - - - - - . .
%, -_ _-.i,.- 7 ,.
'r
- o ,- o i I
t I. ' '
' NUCLEAR 4 REGULATORY COMMISSION 3; .> i. 3-
) ,
,[ ;" '
Y
.h*.
,c ,
-;lN THE MATTER' OF:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON-NUCLEAR:
" ' POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION DURING. ADJUDICATION SIXTH MEETING-
,e:p 3:
+ ,
- , .'..e ,
1 r
pg,g s?Bethesda,; Maryland'
'- Date' ./ Friday, 6 July 1197 9 - Pages- 1; -;, ; +
L i
i I 5I t
t 1 _, .
T.I. phon.:
.#7, , (202)347 3700' m
ACE . FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReporters.
p -
~- 444 North Capitol Street -
~
'g C
.. .. , Washington, D.C. 20001 .
9903260294 h90706 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE. DAILY. '
PDR 10CFR
- PT9 7 PDR
, y . , '
__ __- a L:E
r I' 1 CR5809 . UNITED STATES O? AMERICA
)
NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION O
%)
2 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION 4
DURING ADJUDICATION 5 SIXTH MEETING 6
7 Room 415 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 9
Fr day, 6 July 1979 10 jj The Advisory Committee met,. pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m.
PRESENT:
12 DR. GARY MILHOLLIN, Chairman rh 13
'As/ MR. JOHN FRYE
_j4 MR. STEPHEN OSTRACH
- MR. JOHN CHO -
MR. BRUCE BERSON 15 MR. GEORGE SEGE 16 I
17 18 19 20 21
'- () 22 23 24
> Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
- i. ;
~. - __ _ - . -. . .- . -
81 5809 2
@FFMAN.
ol mts 1 1 PROCEEDINGS ,
i I)
U 2 (9:45 a.m.)
3 DR. MILHOLLIN: This meeting of the Advisory
~.
s 4 Committee on Construction During Adjudication shall now begin 5 on the record.
i 6 We have before us as the first item on our agenda !
7 the workshop language which is to be sent to participants in 8 the workshop. You all received a previous version of this, 9 a draft. George and I worked on it yesterday to make some 10 editorial changes, and I suppose there are a few changes which 11 could be labeled as substantive. But the changes -- I don't 12 believe the changes are very, very great.
() 13 So shall we take a few minutes just to go through it?
14 And if anyone has questions or suggestions about changes, we 15 can take them up.page by page.
16 (Pause . )
17 Any comments? Are you all finished?
-l 18 (No response.)
19 George, I noticed on the last page of the list of 20 participants the typeface seems to be different, the spacing 21 between the lines.
MR. SEGE: I don't think so. It's just a shorter
(]) 22 23 list. They are not all the same length. Not all the lists
/~
\-)/
24 are the same length, and sometimes people had two-line titles, p Federet Reporters, Inc.
25 sometimes one-line titles.
ata 2 . 3 1 Wait a minute. You're right, it is a little bit l 2 closer together.
,-- 3 DR. MILHOLLIN: It looks like it's double-spaced on
' )
4 one and the other's a triple. But that's sort of a very 5 minimum suggestion for change. I suppose it's okay the way it 6 is. I just thought I'd point it out. I'm sure it doesn't need 7 to be changed.
8 MR. OSTRACH: I have three comments on the workshop 9 package. Page 7 of the general guidelines, first line, I think 10 it would be sufficient if we said, "Because of the Commission's 11 ex parte rule, there will be no discussion of the merits of 12 any matter at issue in any proceeding." If we say -- I just L_) 13 think that would be adequate to avoid any ex parte problens 14 and wouldn't unduly constrain the discussions.
15 MR. SEGE: The merits of any matter.
16 MR. OSTRACH: Just add the words "the merits of."
17 MR. SEGE: Okay.
18 DR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, I think that's fine, becausa 19 literally' read, you get the impression that you(couldn't even 20 discuss the existence of the matter. ;
21 MR. OSTRACH: Page 11, three lines up from the
/~' I (s;' 22 bottom, where it says " Panels 2 and 3," I believe that ought 1
y 23 to be " Panels 1 and 3."
( \
\ / l 24 DR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
l Ace Federsi Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. SEGE: Yes.
, I
_. _ . - . _. . _ _ _ ... ~. _ . _ _ _ - _--.._ . _ ..__ _ ._. ._
Bta 3 - 4 1 MR. OSTRACH: And the only other suggestion -- this
() 2 is just a suggestion and probably not necessary -- on page 12, 3 Option 3-B, you might want to say, "The licensing board decision O 4 is unanimous." It's obvious to us, but it might possibly be 5 ambiguous. It's a suggestion. I1 recognize that's not at all 6 necessary.
7 DR. MILHOLLIN: Why don't we say, "The decision is 8 unanimous by the licensing board," for the secretary to type 9 it easier.
10 MR. OSTRACH: She should put a tape over the whole 11 line, anyway.
12 MR. SEGE: All right, "The licensing board decision
() 13 is unanimous."
14 MR. CHO: I have a question on page 6, general 15 guidelines, the second sentence: "The workshop should explore 16 the possibility of changing. . . so as to avoid difficulties.!'
17 I'm not sure what it says.
18 DR. MILHOLLIN: You mean you think it doesn't add 19 anything to the first sentence?
20 MR. CHO: That and, beyond that, I just don't know 21 what it's intended to say. What do you mean, changing
() 22 practice to avoid difficulties in present rules ? To avoid 23 changing the rules?
24
^
DR. MILHOLLIN: Maybe what we should say is "to 1ce Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 change the current rules so as to avoid difficulties with the 1
'ti4l 5 ,
- l 1 present practice."
Of) 2 MR. CHO: That.would make sense.
3 DR. MILHOLLIN: That's a good point.
t
- 4. MR. FRYE: "Or any perceived difficulties," " perceived 5 or identified difficulties with present practice."
6 DR.-MILHOLLIN: Okay. "To avoid perceived difficulties."
~
7 MR. SEGE: I don't think we need the " perceived 8 difficulties." We'd have to retype the page if we put that i
9 word in, and it's really not necessary.
10 DR. MILHOLLIN: George is going to resist. We could ,
11 retype it by changing the two words, by reversing the words. J 12 We wouldn't have to retype the page; is that right, George?
( 13 MR. SEGE: No, we wouldn't have to retype the page 1
14 for that. l 15 DR MILHOLLIN: But with " perceived" we might have ;
16 to. ;
4 1
17 MR. BERSON: Couldn't the word " changing," the first 18 word'of that last line, be moved up one to the end of the 19 sentence, the line before it? .
1 20 DR. MILHOLLIN: If we're all in favor of " perceived,"
21 yes. Would that be all right, George, to move " changing" up L() 22 to the next line? In my role as facilitator here.
23 (Laughter.)
.O-. But do we really need " perceived." It MR. SEGE:
~
24 W Feder:A Reporters, Inc.
25 isn't really questioned any more that there are difficulties ]
)to 5 6 1 with that practice. It was the difficulty with the practice
,r s (j 2 that caused this Committee to come into being.
. 3 DR. MILHOLLIN: Or at least the Commission perceived V 4 difficulties within it.
5 MR. SEGE: Okay, if it's the Committee's wish to 6 put in " perceived" before " difficulties," that would be fine 7 with me.
8 DR. MILHOLLIN: I really don't care.
9 MR. SEGE: I perceive no great difficulty in inserting 10 an. extra word.
11 DR. MILHOLLIN: All right. Why don't we put "the 12 current rules"; is that possible? "The current rules," rather I
() 13 than just saying " current rules, so as to avoid perceived 14 difficulties with the present practice."
15 MR. SEGE: So "The workshop should explore the 16 possibility of changing the current rules so as to avoid 17 perceived difficulties with the present practice," is that 18 right.
19 DR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, except Steve is now suggesting 20 we can delete "so as."
21 MR. OSTRACH: That saves you five or six spaces.
O
(_j 22 MR. SEGE: Okay.
~ 23 DR. MILHOLLIN: Any other comments?
'N / i 24 MR. BERSON : On page 8--this is a mere typo --
D Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 subparagraph (c) , second word.
i
Ita 6 7 1 DR. MILHOLLIN: Oh, yes.
(A,) 2 MR. SEGE: Okay, the word "alterantives" is being 3 changed'to " alternatives."
O 4 MR. OSTRACH: It has a ;ovely Latin root to it, 5 doesn't it? .
6 DR. MILHOLLIN: It sounds better, "alterantive's."
7 Any suggestions for changes as to the workshop 8 participants list? I don't mean substantively for the moment, 9 just typos.
10 MR. CHO: I don't have that list, by the way.
II (Pause.)
i 12 DR. MILHOLLIN: I take it there are no further
() 13 comments on the workshop package or the list of participants, 14 at least non-substantive comments?
15 (No response.)
16 DR. MILHOLLIN: Or substantive comments. I suppose 17 we can take up the question of other nominees. I thought we 'd 18 take that up in a moment.
19 Have you all -- you haven't seen this list before 20 today? John, you haven't seen it?
21 MR. CHO: No. I saw an earlier version, which 22 included some of the names. It was not this particular list.
23 DR. MILHOLLIN: Oh, okay.
O. 24 Shall we then take up any comments concerning the Oce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 list? If you have any" comments about it, this would be the
a Go.7 8 I
)
1 MR. CHO: I take it all these people listed have ;
i
!( ) 2 indicated willingness to participate?
- 3 MR. SEGE
- That is correct.
r e~
~
4 MR. FRYE: Albert Butzel is a new name to me. Who 5 is he? l l
6 MR. SEGE: He was recommended by Myron Karman. He {
7 is a lawyer representing an intervenor viewpoint. He has 8 appeared in several adjudications and is well regarded as an l
9 articulate spokesman of that viewpoint. I believe that 10 .Shoreham was one of the cases; a couple of others. He's in .
11 New York. These have been New York cases that he's participated 12 in.
s 13 MR. CHO: I notice on Panel 3 there's no' technical 14 viewpoint represented.
15 MR. SEGE: Yes. We thought it was too legal for i
16 a technical guy to do-much good there. There will be a technical 17 Committee member present as a resource person as far as 18 discussants are concerned. The planning group didn't feel that 19 the subject areas of this panel would be particularly contri-20 buted to by technical people.
21 It's the exact opposite of Panel 2, where the
(
"() 22 technical content would be quite high and there would be a
_ 23 number of technical people.
, R) 24 DR. MILHOLLIN: While Steve is gone, I can give you i p FWwd Reorwrs, lm.
l 25 a couple of information items that he knows about. One is i l
l l
e
, - . ._ _ - _ _ . _ . . _ . - _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ m___
h ts 8 ' 9 I that we discussed the arrangements for public participation ,
(k 2 in the workshop a little bit, and I think we decided that the 3- best thing would be to simply allow members of the public to O' 4 go to the panel discussions and contribute at the discretion L 5 of the chairman of the panel. And the same would be true with 1.
6 the plenary discussions, rather than setting aside a special 7 time for public participation.
8 Does that sound. agreeable?
9 4R. FRYE: I thought that worked quite well at the 10 seminar last year.
11 DR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. I thought the guestion might 12 come up, someone would look at the agenda and sef: Well,
( )- 13 there's no place on here for public participation. And so 14 that would be the response if anyone asks the question.
15 And I~ suppose in my introductory remarks I should 16 indicate that- that's what public participants are supposed to i 17 do.
18 The other thing I'd thought I'd mention is that the 19 Commission has been considering the problem of how to treat 20 license issuances in the wake of Three Mile Island. The 21 Commissioners exchanged views on the subject in a meeting of
() 22 'which George has a transcript. Are you all privy to that?
23 . Would you like .to look at it? I think we have a couple of
- s 2d extra transcripts, so that if any of you want a transcript of W Feder t Reporters, Inc.
25 that exchange, I think George has an extra one. And maybe --
t jts 9 10 1 Steve, do you have an extra one in your office that you made 2 for me?
3 At least one, perhaps two. $
.MR. OSTRACH:
O 4 DR. MILHOLLIN: If you want a copy of that.
5 MR. .SEGE: We'sent copies-to everyone who made a 6 request in response to my memo. And if you haven't received 7 it yet, it should be in'the mail. But anyone who has not 8 ' requested-a copy and wants one, we have a couple extra copies.
9 So I can still quite easily accommodate any additional-requests.
10 MR. BERSON: I'd like a copy.
Il DR. MILHOLLIN: There's also a memo drafted by 12 Steve which is before the Commission for its consideration, O i3 cencernine what the Commission shou 1d de abeue this eueseien 14 of making licenses effective in the wake of Three Mile Island.
15 Do you think I Would any of you like to have a copy of that?
16 it's appropriate to send around, Steven? Maybe it's not.
17 MR. OSTRACH: There are at least three memos that 18 I have sent to the Commission, one dealing with the subject, 19 two of which were already discussed, that were the subject of
'20 discussion'in open meetings. So far my batting average with 21 the Commission has been well under'100. They have shown no O.. 22 partice1ar interest in the recommeneations of the Office ef 23 theLGeneral Counsel, and.the discussion has changed course 24 each . time .
ice Feder"J Reporters, Inc.
25 .I don't know really how useful it would.~;be to give e
Sta 10 11 1 to the study group, our latest memorandum, because I no longer
()
7_
2 have any reason to believe that that's the way, the direction 3 the Commission is going.
I,1 4 Certainly if the Commission does take any action
~
5 with regard to suspending the immediate effectiveness rule or
~
6 modifying it to take account of TMI, I'll distribute that to 7 the group. But I'm afraid I'm not any more privy to their 8 thinking than anyone else at this point. !
9 MR. CHO: It might help, though, help us, I think, 10 to know what has not been successful or not been affirmatively 11 received by the Commission. I 12 MR. OSTRACH: I'll be more than glad to send the two p
(,) 13 previous ones to you, John. ,
14 DR. MILHdLLIN: Okay, fine. I'd like to see them, 15 f too.
16 While we're on topics of that nature, I wonder, )
17 Steve, whether you could give us a status report on the study 18 of the appeal board function, how that might be proceeding?
19 MR. OSTRACH: I think you might have been one of the 20 people on our list for getting the first section of the report 21 for comment.
() 22 MR. FRYE: I haven't seen it.
,s 23 MR. OSTRACH: Ne sent it to Rosenthal and some other ,
k) 24 That was just the history section.
people for the comment.
Sce Federr.1 Reporters, Inc, 25 I expect that by current guess, I will have the whole report
its 11 12 1 up through the public comment section. The outline of the 2 report is five sections. The fourth section is public comment, 3 and the'fifth is analysis of public comment and final recommen-O 4 dations.
5 The report, minus those things that inevitably await 6 preparation of a draft, should be ready by the end of August.
7 I have a law clerk working on it full-time under my supervision, 8 and she's going to leave then. So that's.when that resource 9 runs out. And it's making quite a bit of progress. I hope to 10 have it by the end of August, or the draft that will be sent out il for public comment by the end of August.
12 MR. FRYE: I see.
O i3 MR. OSiRACH: zn ehe gaet, however, I heve seid that 14 I would have it ready by the end of April and I didn't. l 15 MR. FRYE: So that it would be published for a comment 16 period of approximately 30 days.
17 MR. OSTRACH: I expect, because our obligation is to 18 get it to the Commission quite a while ago, actually. So I l
19 guess, having already missed my time deadline, I'm free to 1 20 r.lide still further behind. We're certainly hoping to get it 21 finished well before much into the fall, 30-day comment, a
- O 22 fair 1r brief ene1rsis of commente end then send it to the 23 Commission.
24 It's very likely that the recommendations section 5ce-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 will be of' considerable interest to the licensing board, and
sto 12 13 l
1 I think I will probably be calling you and Mr. Lazo, not in
() 2 your roles as study group representatives, but to discuss that 3 section of the report with you.
4 DR. MILHOLLIN: -The outline of the final report was 5 presented, I think, to all of you by mail. This would be a good 6 time to go over it, if there are comments on its content. I 7 thought it was a very good outline. I'm a little reluctant to l
8 begin the problem of making work assignments, since we really i 9 haven't received very much information yet. But I suspect 10 that's going to have to happen.
11 I could make a few obvious assign:c.ents, but maybe 12 it would be better to hold off on making the assignments for
() 13 the time being.
14 MR. SEGE: Mr. Chairman', shall I give a copy of the 15 memo to the reporter, to place in the record?
16 DR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
17 MR. SEGE: Of the general outline.
18 DR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, of the final report.
19 MR. SEGE: Yes, the general outline of the final 20 report.
21 DR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, thank you. That would be good.
( 22 (The document referred to follows:)
23
-O 24 Ace Federel Reporters, Inc.
25 o
N. .. 1
... t .-
. g UNITED STATES . '-...,;"'~"~
d'gn nacoq#',
M~
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION
. S WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e ;.--
infer ":
5, h
- ,,+ June 20, 1979
. /
O
- O MEMORANDUM FOR: '
Advisory Committee on Construction During.
Adjudication .
FROM:
Stephen Ostrach, GC NM @
George Sege, PE g fj '
SUBJECT:
GENERAhOUTLINEOFFINAL FPORT
'ly
~ ~ At the Committee's Juqe 4 meeting we were tasked to prepare a general outline for the Committee's consideration at the next meeting (July 6). ,
The draft. general outline is attached. After revision in light of the study group's comments, this general outline is intended to become the basis for preparation of more detailed outlines of the various sections and for making writing assignments.
Attachment:
Draft Outline ,
Distribution: Gary Milho111n John Cho 1
John Frye William Lov'elace-Myron Karman .
Darrell Nash Theodore Quay G
9 G
e e
O O -
e e a g o
O 9
e e
. - . . - . _ . . .- . . . - - . . . - . . ...-. _ ...=._. . . - .. . - . .-. . . . ~ . - - - . - . . - . ,
. . - 1
.e . . , ;
. . g t
/- g
' ~
..O- .
j i:
$. 4 2 * . r j- -
. t a .
- - g ?
.i . .
i.
. . .4 t . ,
e . .
.. = --
i e
4 . e.~. m.
e
..v.
f .. -
...~ ._. ~.
I 4
d ,
i
( !
l
!' DRAFT '
i i
'l GENERAL OUTLINE OF. FINAL REPORT -
IO ADviS0n C0=ITTEE ON -
l CONSTRUCTION DURING ADJUDICATION
{ -
1 _
4 f
1
.[ .
[ Stephen S. Ostrach j' George Sege June 20, 1979 f.
2 1
4 O .
N j .
E 4 'O.
4
] .
e t .
j' e 4 0 i . . .
~ -,e. ., - , , - - +-r a --,----*-,-.-~w.-- , .-r .-,w .-- . --e--- -.--- -- - - - , - - -- e-- -
f.L ,
- 1. INTRODUCTION AND SU'MMARY (about 10 pp.)
1.1 Background'of the Study ,
History of the problem, 4/5/18 memo, Advisory Committee 12 Study Objectives G "
1.3 Study Scope -
1.4 Study Approach - '
Structure, method, general description 15 Information Base.
- . .Very concise highlights of survey of cases, detailed ,
case studies, FR questionnaire responses, workshop, )
other inputs ,
J 1.6 Phblic-Participation j 1.7 Conclusions and Recommendations
- 2. INFORMATION BASE (25-50 pp.) ,
~
2.1 Survey of Cases
~
2.2 Detailed Case Studies o; 2.3 Responses to Pu.blished Questionnaire i 2.4 Workshop 2.5 Other Inputs 3 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES (25 .50 pp.)
31 Criteria .
3.2 Range of Options Considered 3.3 Present System ,
3.4 Delay in Effectivehess options -
3.5 Selective Effectiveness 3.6 ,Sta s and Altered Appellate Procedures p.-
v
. 37 Proceedings Other Than Direct Rev.iew 3.8*'* Application of Findings.
2 .
~
O 4-concLus1ons ^"o asco""z"o^T1ons (5-1o 99-).
G&neral :results of the analyses.
O waat meede enansins,vnv. ho .
~
Recommendations stemming from each majoi conclusion.
May include decom[5endations on related considerations or
. . for further study of.them (OL's, fu'el cycle facilities, etc.)
APPENDICES '
As needed, to keep report itself relatively concise. Ex-
, pected to be needed especially for Subsection 1.1 and Section 2. -
Total pages, excluding appendices: About 100.
e e
e e
. l l
i e
- e O
'* a d
e e
l
Go 13 14 1 MR. BERSON: Was that sent to Myron Karman?
f 2 MR. SEGE: It was sent to all the Committee members.
3 MR. CHO: You sent me one, but I don't have one here.
4 .Do you have an extra copy, George?
5 MR. SEGE: I'm down to my last one, but I can share it ,
6 DR. MILHOLLIN: I'll sneak over and look on with you.
91 7 (Pause . )
8 9
10 11 12 O is 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l
l 21 l'
O 22 23 24 wFeder:A Reporters, Inc.
25 i
j809.02.1 15- >
'gsh ~ l: DR. MILHOLLIN: No comments?
2 (No response.L 3 -
DR. MILHOLLIN: The deadline, of course, will not
( 4 expire on comments to this- document, since there's no deadline 5' - MR. FRYE One very, very small comment. Section 2.3, 6 it should say summary of responses to public from this .
7- questionnaire. ,
6 DR..MILHOLLIN: Okay.
Y MR. CHO: Mr. Chairman, do we have an understanding I
10 t ha t this outline is subject to change as we go along?
11 DR. MILHOLLIN: Of course.
12 MR. CHO: And get more deep into our. study.
l 13 DR. MILHOLLIN I a ssume tha t's understood. -
{} 14 15 MR. SEGE: That was certainly the intent of the proponents of this general outline, 10 MR. CHO Well, I think it looks very good, as 17 certainly a starting point.
-18 MR. FRYE: I certainly agree.
IV DR. MI'LHOLLIN: I think it covers the subject very 20 well. About as well as it could be covered at this time.
21 We have the workshop coming up. We'll try to get l
22 the package out today. I s tha t right, George? j 23' MR. SEGE: Yes, that is correct. I will be 24 forwarcing the changes that the committee decided on to
) J 25 down town. And then when those changes are made, the package
$609.02.2 16 gsh I goes out in the mail so it will travel over the weekend.
O b 2 DR. MILHOLLIN: We won't be having another meeting ,
3 bef ore' the workshop. So this would be the time for general 4 comments about the workshop, if you have them, or suggestions 5 or last minute thoughts.
6 MR. FRYE: There is one ma tter that is related to l 7 this workshop. I don't know whether you want to take it 8 up now- or not. But the response to our questionnaire. The Y Department of Interior has asked for an extension of time 10 in which to make comments, I believe until July 27th, which l
.11 of course would be past the date of the workshop.
1 12 Our intention, of course, had been to hopef ully 13 have the comments in hand by the time the workshop took place.
O V
14 DR. MILHOLLIN: Let me ask you a question about 15 that, since this transpired since I was gone.
10 The Deparment of the Interior is responding to 17 which questionnairs? ,
18 MR. FRYE The general questionnaire that was 19 published in the Federal Register. i 1
20 DR. MILHOLLIN: The one f or the litigants?
21 MR. FRY E Yes.
22 MR. OSTRACH: Perhaps I can speak to this. There 23 were a number of telephone requests that were made for ;
24 extensions of time for other agencies and other groups, EPA, 25 f or example. And each request I gave have responded to by A
V l
5
@09.02.3 17 gsh I saying that the purpose of the July 6 deadline was to enable
() 2 the comments to be considered by the workshop. Comments 3 received af ter that would not be considered by the workshop.
( 4 On the other hand, our records are open. We've ,
5 consistently said that we would always accept comments and 6 consider them to the extent po ssi bl e .
7 And under those circumstances, I wasn't giving them 6 an extension of time; I wa s merely pointing out that any 9 comments would be received. However, we would appreciate it 10 if someone who did want to respond to the questionnaire in 11 a f ashion that was out of time, if they could send us a letter
! 12 f or the record bef ore July 6th.
13 Other than Interior, I don't think that I've seen 14 any of those so f ar. I've received . telephone statements that 15 people would be f iling comments -- from the New England 16 Coalition, epa. perhaps one or two other groups. In each 17 case, I've told them that we'd appreciate the comments by 18 July 6th. We need them f or the workshop. If they're not 19 going to file by July 6th, we certainly would not reject 20 the comments out of hand.
21 So there are others in addition to Interior.
22 MR. FRYE: Well, I would suggest that we treat 23 Interior's request in the same way.
24- MR. OSTRACH: Oh, definitely.
O 25 MR. FRYE I think that that's the reasonable way to f
n U
4
09.02.4 18 sh I do it.
2 DR. MILHOLLIN: So we need to take no f urther action
,-q 3 now.
k-) 4 MR. FRYE: O ther . t han , I su ppose, to. respond to 5 them. l 6 MR. OSTRACH: I think I already have. I'll check.
7 DR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Any other items which have to 8 do with the workshop?
9 MR. BERSON: I had just one brief comment, and this 10 I don't know the answer to the question.
.11 Are any of the panel chairmen anticipating having 12 handouts or written materials of their own at the conference?
13 The rea son f or the question is if they are, .I'd
(]) 14 like to make arrangements to have sufficient additional 15 copies, reproduced f or members of the public who will be 16 a ttending.
1 17 I don't know if the chairmen -- l 1
18 DR. MILHOLLIN: All the chairmen are here, aren't i 19 they?
20 MR. BERSON: Yes.
21 MR. CHO I hadn't planned on having anything.
22 MR. FRYE Nor had I.
23 MR. 0STRACH: I had. .I was going to give out the 24 workshop package, and perhaps a f ew copies of the interim (V'T 25 report and also the April 5th memorandum that set up the group, 1
l ,
l l
\-.
4809.02.5 19 gsh I and just leave them on a pile in back of the room if anybody
() 2 wanted .them.
3 MR. FRYE That certainly makes sense, n
kJ 4 MR. OSTRACH: But .I don' t know if anyone will. And 5 we have our own Xerox machine downtown, so I can take care o of it myself. And if either of the panel chairmen would like, 7 I could just crank up my machine for a f ew more copies.
6 I think ve're all talking about the same distribution Y MR. CHO It might be a good idea to have those 10 available for anyone there who might want them.
11 MR. FRYE I think , yes, that's a very good idea. l 12 DR. MILHOLLIN: It might also be a good idea for 13 the chairman to have a copy of most or all of the crucial (g 14 documents themselves as a reference, if anybody brings them l
%l 1 15 up and wants to talk about them.
16 I'm thinking about the code of federal regulations. !
l 17 It might be a good idea f or each of you to have a copy of l 18 the existing regulations because you can imagine a couple of lY lawyers ge tting into an argument about what the present 20 rules already provide.
21 And so it would probably be usef ul to have something 22 quickly to refer to.
23 Any other matters having to do with the workshop?
,3
, 24 MR. SEGEs Just two points, Mr. Chairman, that you
(.) 25 and I discussed before, that whatever results are apparent n
L.]
i .
09.02.6 20 ;
sh 1 f rom the questionnaire that- John was discussing, you might like 2 an opportunity in your introductory remarks to mention anything t
f, 3 of- that sort that might influence the workshop debate.-
'O 4 -The other thing I wanted to mention is that we have I
- 5 no estimate at all as to how many members of the public will o attend. So in terms of how many extra copies of the .
l '7 ' information package do we have present, our _ plan now is to 8 make 14 extra copies and to ask Bruce Berson if he could
! Y leave one copy with the secre tary, so that if we need more, 10 additional copies could be made.
l .11 And we'll go over in a matter of minutes as soon as 12 we know' that the crowds are bigger than the number of copies
! 13- tha t we provided.
() 14' DR. MILHOLLIN: If they line out in the street, we'll 15 need more Xerox copies.
16 MR. BERSON: That will be fine, George.
17 DR. MILHOLLIN: I, wanted to ask you for suggestions 18 as to my introductory remarks. Chairman Hendrie is going to 19 welcome the workshop participants.
20 I was hoping to generate a f air amount of background 21 and other general information so I could give part of it to 22 him so he would have some thing to say, but then have enough 23 lef t for myself so that I would have something to say.
l
'24 - George has budgeted a whole hour for these two
)
25 addresses. -So that's a considerable challenge, I think.
(
L L
_. . - _ - . . - - . _ _ _ . _ , _ _ ~. . _ _ ~-
@09.02.7 21 gsh 1 My plan was simply to remind them of what tne O
s/ 2 guidelines in the package already say and to explain the 3 logistics and so for.th of the panels, explain the arrangements A
k- 4 f or - public pa r tic i pa tion.
5 I was planning to report on the questionnaires, if 6 there are enough to repor t on.
7 Beyond that, I'll have to conf ess that the well is 8 pre tty dry.
9 So if you have right now or later -- pref erably 10 right now -- any ideas about matters which you think I should
.11 discuss, I'd a pprecia te having your views. I'd love some 12 inspiration f rom whatever corner it might emerge.
13 MR. CHO How about mentioning some of the thinking
{} I4 that went behind selection of the participants? -
15 DR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. I would also, of course, give
, 16 the group, the attendants, the crowd, the masses her e 17 collected there a report on the genesis of the group, what 16 we've aone up to now and so forth.
IV MR. 0STRACH: That would be something similar to the 20 presentation that we gave bef ore the commission on April 25th.
21 DR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
22 MR. OSTRACH: I have a transcript of that and it 23 might be possible for you to look at the transcript of your l
24 remarks and piece together another set of remarks.
(~)
%s 25 DR. MILHOLLIN: I intend to ask people to pose 4
6809.02.8 22 gsh ! questions f rom the floor concerning the workshop.
A
(/ 2 Do you have any suggestions as .to what kind of 3 questions we should anticipate receiving?
4 I had thought of the one on public participation, 5 but there msy be others that we can anticipate which would be 6 useful to think about in advance.
7 MR. SEGE: One possible question might be, Mr.
8 Chairman, if some of the discussants f eel that they want to Y f ollow up on the workshop with additional detail, additional 10 exposition of something f or which there wasn't enough time,
.11 whether the committee would be in a position to receive and 12 consider those.
13 For example, a participant would say, I came across 14 this problem on that case, and say a f ew words about it and
(]) '
15 then offer to report in more detail just what his perception 16 of that matter is.
17 That question may come up.
16 DR. MILHOLLIN: One re sponse might be , as Steve has 19 pointeo out, that the record of this group is always open.
20 MR. SEGE: Right. And also, the sooner, the be tter 21 because we turn into a pumpkin on the first of November.
22 DR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. It might also be well to asr.
23 the person to f urnish copie.s of that response to all other 24 members of his panel, or her panel, so that they could
[}
25 respond if they think i t's a ppropriate.
6809.02.Y 23 gsh l MR. SEGE: Yes, that sounds good. Any such response.
-O 2 of course, would be voluntary because at that point, t hey 3 would no longer be under the arrangement f or the workshop.
O 4 uR. osrRiem Thet reises en interestino question 5 about the continued utilization of the panel members af ter 6 the workshop is over.
7 We will have the panel members and perhaps those 6 members of the public who showed up and showed interest. We V will have a very valuable resource in the members of the 10_ panel f or reviewing the questions being addressed by the
.1 I group.
12 And I would strongly encourage them to keep these 13 people in mind when we publish our draf t report and make very 14 sure that in addition to the notice in the Federal Register, O 15 that it exists, and whatever other means of obtaining comment 16 we get, bu't t ha t we also provide copies of the report to l 17 members of these panels who showed interest to ensure that 18 we get their comments on tha t report.
19 That migF' be very valuable for ge tting a usef ul ;
1 20 commentary.
21 MR. SEGE: I suppose the practicality of that will 22 depend whether we are in a position to finish our report to l l
23 a meaningful, commentable draf t stage well enough bef ore the 1 24 deadline for submitting it to the commission to permit public O 25 comment.
O
4809.02.10 24 gsh 1 MR. OSTRACH: What I had in mind was that even if 2 the group in its dying breath late on the night of October 3 31st handed a report to the commission, I assume that the O 4 commission's first action would be to seek public comment on 5 'that.
6 I wasn't contemplating us, .this group, ce tting 7 public comment, nece ssarily, and then going back \ > the 6 commission with something that had already gone through public 9 comment.
10 It might be that this group will issue a report
.11 and the commission would seek public comment on it. But while 12 collective identity might be lost, I believe our individual 13 existences would still be around. And then we could suggest 14 to the commission that in cddition to whatever public comment
- (])
15 was provided, it also send them to these persons.
16 MR. SEGE: And these are the people who have shown 17 active interest in our work up to this point, and the 16 commission may be interested in particularly soliciting their I 19 views.
20 MR. OSTRACH: Yes.
21 MR. SEGE: I understand.
22 DR. MILHOLLIN: Another matter which has to do with 23 the workshop is the question of whether we as a committee want to meet af ter the workshop the second day in the
~
24 25 af ternoon to discuss any ma tters which may be appropriate at O .
- m. , , , , - - - - -
g-809.02.11 25 gsh l that time.
( 2 What's your feeling on that?
3 MR. CHO I think it's a good idea. I suppose we'll 4 have learned some lessons that perhaps we can put to be tter 5 use if it's really fresh in our minds right afterwards.
c DR. MILHOLLIN: Maybe there are some things which have 7 come up that we would like to pursue immediately. And if so, 8 it would be usef ul to have a mee. ting right then so we could Y decide what to do rather than waiting another week and a half 10 or two weeks until the next regular meeting.
.11 MR. FRYE I t sounds usef ul.
12 MR. SEGE: I t sounds good to me.
13 DR. MILHOLLIN: The schedule has us, I t hink ,
14 aajourning at 12:45 on the second day. Would 2:00, 2:30 be
)
- 15 agreeable as a meeting time?
10 MR. SEGE: Ei ther one. -
17 MR. CHO Depending on when the study actually 16 ends.
19 DR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. All right. So we'll meet 20 either at 2:00 or 2:30 in the af ternoon, whatever time is 21 appropriate f or a short meeting.
22 MR. SEGE: Bruce, is the Holiday Inn still going to 23 be there af ter lunch?
24 MR,. BERSON: I don't know. That's a question 1
)'
25 would have to check with them as to whether we would be having O
1;
- 809.02.12 26 l
-gsh; I the meeting.
L() 2 DR. MILHOLLIN: If we can't have it there, maybe 3 we can come over here and have it here.
(~ '
\--) 4 MR. FRYE I see no reason why we couldn't.
1 5 MR. SEGE: Shall we just say we'll meet here? j 6 DR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
7 MR. BERSON: How about arranging for a reporter at ;
l 8 that meeting. Would that cause problems? l l
V MR. OSTRACH: You mean the meeting back here 10 afterwards? Well, we probably would be making arrangements
.11 for, I gue ss. three reporters over at the Holiday Inn.
12 MR. SEGE: One reporter on the second day because it 13 will all be plenary.
14 MR. OSTRACH: Then the only question is whether we
(])
15 can instruct Chase to have .that reporter go for the whole 16 day rather than just half the day.
17 Have you spoken to Chase about the workshop already, l le George or Bruce?
19 MR. SEGE: I have not. Bruce has.
20 MR. BERSON: I've made arrangements for reporters 21 during the time we anticipate that the meetings will last.
22 MR. OSTRACH: Will you ge t back to Chase, or 23- whomever?
24 MR. BERSON: I'll do that.
~)
25- DR. MILHOLLIN: We could just say the reporter will be !
l
r@09.02.13 27 I gsh I needed at either 2:00 or 2:30 in the af ternoon for an hour
() 2 or two, pe rha ps.
! 3 So, the remaining item I have -- I guess we have
- kl 4 two remaining items on my agenda, and then I'll throw it open
! 5 f or other people to add i tems.
6 In the last meeting, I noticed as I read the 7 tran sc ri pt that there-was some discussion of interview 8 schedules f or the people we intend to interview on the 9 licensing board, appeal board, and the commission.
10 What's your pleasure on that? It occurred to me that
.11 it might be usef ul to incorporate in our interviews the 12 results of the charts by way of specific questions. The 13 chart identifies certain cases. The se are t he c har ts -- I
/'T 14 guess that you worked on the charts, John -- Bill Parler and V
15 you' worked on them -- that conclude that construction may Q$h 10 have pre judiced review.
17 It occurred to me that it might be useful to sort 16 of focus on those cases during the interviews. I su ppose we 19 should talk about the content of the interviews to some 1
l 20 extent f airly soon.
21 So I just throw that out for your consideration,
! 22 the problem of the interviews and the content of the i 23 interviews.
l 24 l C:)
25 O
l
CR5809 Hoffman t3 28 jl 1 1 Probably we wouldn't be able to do the interviews
() _
2 before the latter part of this month, given the schedule we
, 3 all have -- at least the schedule I have.
t ;
~'
4 I thought I'd just bring that up for discussion.
5 Perhaps we could plan to do the interviews during the month 6 of hugust.
7 MR. FRYE: Uhat's your thought, Mr. Chairman, that we divide the group into interviewing teams or something of 9 that nature?
10 DR. MILHOLLIN: Well, I didn't have a particular 11 thought on it, but that's a possibility certainly. I think 12 we'll have to divide up the work, obviously, among ourselves em
(,) 13 in s ome way .
14 MR. CHO: That's one of the items we can discuss at 15 our meeting, following the conference , In the meantime , we 16 can be thinking about the mechanics of how to conduct the 17 interview, substantive matters we 'd like to get involved in, 18 and so forth. !
19 DR. MILHOLLIN: All right, i 20 Shall we do that, try to think about the content?
21 MR. CHO: And the mechanics , I think; right, whether
(_) 22 we'd be breaking up into smaller groups , what report we would
, . -3 23 include for the record, things like that.
.)
24 DR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
4ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 So, we'll discuss that at our meeting on July the
T jl 2 29 1 19 th .
73
(_) 2 That's the end of my list, except for possibly 3 discussion of the nomination of Chauncey Kepford and Judith t ;
~
4 Johnsrud as participants.
5 MR. OSTRACH: Mr. Chairman, did I miss the 6 discussion on the New England meeting?
7 DR. MILHOLLIN : I'm sorry. There was a gap in my 8 agenda.
9 MR. OSTRACH: I was out of the room.
10 DR. MILLHOLLIN: No , we didn ' t mis s it , and we should 11 talk about it; you're right.
12 Why don't we do that first?
(.
(_) 13 I talked to George about this item yesterday. I 14 guess Steve and I also talked dbout it. My hope was that we 15 could find out something from our regional office, which would 16 tell us how likely it would be to get valuable public comment 17 if we were to go to Boston.
18 So f ar we haven't been able , so f ar as I can tell, 19 to get much information -- to get information which predicts 20 very much about what kind of public response will be forth-21 coming.
\_/ 22 Is that a fair characterization, George?
r's 23 MR. SEGE: Yes, that is.
(.) 24 I ' ve talked to Bob Ryan , the Director of the Office 4ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 of State Programs, and he didn't think there was anything ' chat
$13 30 1 he could do that would have predictive value on the extent and
(^)x
( 2 quality of public participation, how many people would come ,
3 and how interested in the various aspects U$at thi[ committee O- 4 deals with they would be.
5 But he offered the services of his office in letting 6 potentially interested groups know if they should decide to go 7 ahead. He thought it was a good idea for us to have at least 8 one meeting outside the Washington area, particularly in the 9 Seabrook vicinity to show receptiveness to this sort of public i
10 participation that may very weil be available there, although ,
11 he didn ' t know.
12 I also talked to Fred Siegel,in the Office of the
() 13 Governor of New Hampshire, who is the Liaison Officer for the I
14 State of New Hampshire, in conncecti in with NRC licenses to l 15 get his view about the sort of participation that would be j 16 obtainable either in the Seabrook vicinity or in Boston.
17 His thought was that Boston would be better, because 18 it's more easily accessible from the nearby New Hampshire 19 areas, and he thought that interest would be considerable.
20 And he offered his own services in letting potentially inter-21 ested people know.
(j 22 I didn't get too good a feel from him as to how 23 focused such an interest on the part of the public would be 7s
>)~
24 on the specific issues that this committee is charged to Ace Forteral Reporters, Inc.
25 consider, as distinguished from a general interest in the
l j14 31' l 1 area of nuclear licensing and interested in various viewpoints
.O 2 with reseece to that. .
3 This is about all that I've been able to obtain by
. ()' 4 way of aids to forecasting. They're of limited aid in 5 forecasting as to what sort of participation, public 6 participation, would take place in Boston. 1 7 DR. MILHOLLIN: I think, John, you commented last ;
8 time that 'you thought it would be easy to get the views 9 generally of people around the. area as to whether they liked 10 or disliked Seabrook, but it would be more ' difficult to get 11 their views as to the problens that our committee is dealing 12 with.
'( ) 13 MR. CHO: I still don't see any value from having a l
14 meeting in the Boston area. I'm not sure that a meeting such 15 as this we're having now would be particularly helpful to the 16 " public; and perhaps if the committee were holding a hearing 17 of some sort and allowed people to make statements , that might 18 be one thing. But just being observers and intending to 19 comment in our deliberations, I just don't see any value in 20 it at all.
21 MR. FRYE: You raise another point, too. I wonder
-( ) 22 to what extent we can expect people , or the public at large, l 23 to come in and address these specific, rather technical and i l (1) '
24 isolated questions we're dealing with.
hee Federet Reporters, Inc.
25 As. you point out, we could certainly find out l l
l l
i
jl 5 32 1 whether they liked or disliked Seabrook. But whether they would I) 2 really focus on the very narrow issues we have before us is
, 3 perhaps another question.
( )
4 MR. CHO: I suspect that no matter how we try to 5 explain what we 're doing, the public will visualize a public 6 hearing type of meeting, because I think that's what 're y used to. And I just wonder whether is what we have in mind 8 when we s ay, you knou, let's possibly hold a meeting in that 9 area.
10 MR. SEGE: If this meeting were held there, I can 11 imagine a few dozen people from the public showing up and 12 being bored stiff.
7,
(,) 13 MR. BE RSON : I'ra wondering if perhaps some indication 14 of the interest that various groups might have might be gleaned 15 from the response we get to the questionnaire that was sent 16 'out?
17 MR. FRYE: I think that's a very good point.
18 I think perhaps , from a look a the responses we get 19 to the questionnaire , we can get some indication of the amount 20 of interest in the specific narrow issues we've been focusing 21 on.
22 DR. MILHOLLIN: Those responses were scheduled to
.~ 23 be in today; were they not?
)
24 MR. SEGE: The sun has not yet set.
Am-Federst Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. OSTRACH: Was the wording " received" or " filed"?
. _ . - _ . = __ _ . -
Ljl 6
. 1 MR. FRYE: My rec 11ection is the wording was
" received."
2 3 DR. MILHOLLIN: Well, is there any more discussion j r- .
on the subject -of whether we should have the meeting there?
4 5
MR. SEGE: Yes , Mr. . Chairman, I think the committee 6
should decide this morning, so that if. the decision is yea, 7
there will be reasonable time to make arrangements.
8 I doubt that you're really going to find out so much 9
more in the next week or two that delaying a decisi .n to out 10 July 19 meeting would really be worthwhile.
11 MR. OSTRACH: On the other hand, by the July 19th 12 meeting, we will have had the workshop. We also have a number OV 13 of group members who are not here today and present.
And we 14 may even has some group members .if we get some replacements 15 for the people who have resigned from the group.
16 Under those circumstances , we would certainly .have 17 a larger group to obtain a consensus from. We'd only be losing 18 two weeks, and I, for one, would get a little more feel of ]
19 whether there is any interest outside the group here and the 20 few people we've gotten to sit on our panels. if absolutely 21 no person showed up at the workshop in Bethesda other than h 22 the panel members .
23 I would be far from saying, what about the prospects
,p i
V-24 of getting anyone to show up at Seabrook.
co-Federal Reporters, Inc.
- 25 If, on the other hand, we got 10 or 12 people, I I
l
jl 7 34 1 would think about it. I don't think that we ' d lose very much g3
() 2 by waiting another two weeks , unless the plan was to have a l
-7_s; 3 regular August meeting up in the New England area. ,
- 1
/
1 4 MR. SEGE: I thought that was the plan. l 5 MR. OSTRACH: If that is the intent, then I guess l l
6 we should make the decision today. l 7 The regular August meeting, of course, doesn't have 8 to be held on the first Friday in August. The primary l
l
/ reason for seleecting that date is no longer applicable. I 10 DR. MILHOLLIN: We could put off the scheduling of 11 the August meeting until our meeting on the 19th. That would I 12 solve the problem perhaps .
l L_! 13 MR. OSTRACH: Well, yes , except that we have to give 14 15 days Federal Register notice before the next meeting. So 15 if we put off i cheduling until July 19th, we sould not probably !
l 16 be able to schedule it the first week of August.
17 DR. MILHOLLIN : Suppose we scheduled the meeting 18 at the normal time in August, with the understanding that we 19 could cancel the neeting if we decided to reschedule it on 20 the 19th.
21 MR. OSTRACH: That certainly sounds good.
22 DR. MILHOLLIN: And scheduling the meeting here on
~3 23 the first Friday in August.
- 1 24 MR. OSTRACH: Then why don't I, in my role as Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Federal Register, amenuensis, for the next Federal Register
ji 8 35 1 notice schedule the meeting for this room, the first Friday
() 2 in August, at 9 :30, but with the proviso that the group is 3 considering rescheduling that meeting to the New England area 1 7-
's_/
4 for a later date, and that will be decided at the July 19th 5 meeting.
6 The entire workshop has been noticed as a meeting of 7 the study group, so adding the afternoon session does not 1
1 8 require a separate Federal Register notice. I l
9 MR. SEGE: Steve, if you put such a notice into 10 the Federal Register and added a sentence asking for anyone 11 who has views on whether we should go to New England to write 12 us.
A
() 13 Do you think there would be any sort of response 14 that would be helpful .to us in deciding?
15 MR. OETRACH: I thought about that as I was just 16 spe aking. There might possibly be a positive response. I 17 wouldn't view a negative response as really dispositive. I 18 think it would be kind of -- in an offhand way, we would be 19 raising the subject. l l
20 Certainly a positive response I would view as 21 significant. A negative response I would be uncertain about.
O) s- 22 MR. SEGE: Do you think it would be worth adding 1
23 such a sentence?
(~s%-]
24 MR. OSTRACH: Sure.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. CHO: You mentioned the New England area. I
. . - . - . . . . .. --- - -. -. ~
jl 9 l 36 I
I wonder if this might generate some regional conflict -- other f'\
(_) 2 people saying that, say, why not our area for a meeting? I i
! 3 j us t wonder . --
!- 4 MR. OSTRACH: I would be overjoyed if we got a 5 strong tidal wave of support for the Marble Hill area, for 6 example.
7 (Laughter. )
8 MR. CHO: I don't mean necessarily a strong tidal )
9 wave, but one or two letters from other parts of the country.
10 I just wondered whether it might be wiser just to say "possible j 11 meeting out of town, out of the Washington D.C. area."
l 12 MR. OSTRACH: That would reduce the likelihood of
("% So far our
\_/ 13 getting information about the New England region. I l
14 discussions have been only about the New England Seabrook 15 re gion . I don't see why we shouldn't raise that. I 16 If we do get responses saying, " Gee , how come you' re 17 only thinking that; why aren't you thinking about our 18 part of the country," we ought to respond to it.
19 But if our focus ~is New England, I guess we want to 20 s ay that .
21 MR. SEGE: By the same token , Steve , would it be O
- (,/ 22 worth mentioning the Boston area so that any response that we 23 get would be specific to the Boston area?
f 24 MR. OSTRACH: Something like New England, perb' i Ace Federet Reporters, Inc, 25 Boston.
jl10
. 37 1 MR. SEGE: Something of that sort so that the -
) 2 response could then indicate to us whether people would come 3 to Boston or whether they would come if it were in New Haven, O
v 4 but not. in Boston.
5 MR. BERS ON : Steve, would the Federal Register 6 notice be sufficiently specific so as to alert people what we 7 would be going there for?
8 I guess I'm going back to the suggestion I made 9 a little earlier, using the questionnaire that we sent to 10 everybody who is presently active in the licensing proceedings ;
1 11 and that if we don't get ~ a response to that that was l
l 12 specifically tailored to' the work of this committee, if we
]
() 13 might be opening a Pandora's box so to speak if our Federal 14 Register notice is not very narrow so as to indicate what it 15 is, what type of interest it is we're looking for in going to 16 New England.
17 MR. OSTRACH: I don ' t unde rs tand your conce rn . Are 18 you concerned about getting affirmative responses that are 19 based on ignorance about the group's business?
20 MR. BERS ON : Yes.
21 MR. OSTRACH: Since I view it as extremely unlikely
) 22 we'll get any affirmative responses based on anything at all, I
l gg 23 I'm not too concerned about getting an overload of affirmative l V 24 responses, particularly since it would be in the context of p Federet Reporters, Inc.
l 25 eighth or tenth, whatever it is , meeting of this study group.
jl 11 38 1 I don't think that we will get unfocused responses:
() 2 perhaps we might.
- . . 3 MR. CHO: Then why go through the motions?
i 4 I agree with Bruce. I think the general public has 5 no comprehension of what we' re about, and the specific subject 6 matter that is the focus of our study, and I suspect any notice 7 that goes out, unless it's very explicit and perhaps detailed, i 8 they'll just picture a general hearing on nuclear energy.
9 MR. FYRE : That's my fear, as well.
1 10 DR. MILHOLLIN: Steve , couldn' t you make it specific 11 and say specifically what the committee is interested in, and 12 we'd be going there for public views as to this specific thing
() 13 only, and so forth?
-14 MR.,OSTRACH: I' d like -- we started off -- this 15 was just a discussion doout a routine Federal Register notice 16 about our meetings , and I was putting in a sentence that while 17 the meeting might not be held in Bethesda in August, it might 18 in f act be moved to later in August in another place.
19 The suggestion was, "Well, you' d better describe 20 what you' re going to do," and it's gradually becoming a 21 solicitation for public views on that s
') _
22 I don't think, as I said before, that this is a e' 23 particularly effective way of soliciting public interest in a N]
24 regional meeting.
4ee Federst Reporters, Inc.
25 I think Bruce's suggestion was much better, but I l
jl'12 39 1 don't think it should be viewed as a solicitation of public
() 2 views , but to respond to the more substantive concerns that 3 both Johns have just raised.
O- 4 I agree that members of the public at large who are
'S not legally trained may find it difficult to give us the 6 technical and specific analysis that will be directly usable 7
in terms of should we alter the stay standards of Virginia 8
petroleum jobbers in adopting an equity balancing test.
9 On the other hand, I think members of the public 10 may very well have -- and have useful views en the subject of:
11 Is it outrageous to allow a plant to be built at the same time 12 you're telling people they're appealing a decision?
() 13 They may be unfocused, but they may be strongly
. 14 felt. And I think the legitimacy of the process is one of 15 the things -- the appearance of the legitimacy of the process l
16 i? one of the things the Commission asked us to investigate 17 in addition to the more narrow and technical questions that 18 we' re to consider.
19 If there is a tremendous feeling that as soon as 20 I saw those bulldozers come in, I knew the game was ap and it 21 was all a sham, that's widely held by people that participate
() 22 in the licensing process. It weakens the licensing process ,
23 and it's a strong argument against continuing the present l
O 24 Immediate Effectiveness Rule -- not necessarily a decisive l
%=-Feni amorwes, w.
l 25 argument, but a strong argument. ;
?
l
jl 13 40 ;
i l 1 And I, for one, would like to know whether that's
() 2 the presumption, or if people felt to the contrary: "Well, i
3 yeah, I saw bulldozers going, but I knew that we still had an l
(~
(>g ,
I 4 appeal before the ever-watchful Appeal Board, so.I wasn't for l
5 a moment concerned." ,
l 6 I'd like to know if there are people like that 7 wandering around, too.-
8 DR. MILHOLLIN: I think that's a good point. I'd 9 like to know whether there are people like that wandering l
10 around. I guess my concern is whether we can find those people 11 and alert them that we ' re interested and we ' re coming.in a 12 way which will get them before us.
() 13 MR. CHO: Mr. Chairman , if that's so. significant, 14 why don't we just conduct a public opinion poll?
15 I think you can get that kind of reaction much 16 better from a straight public opinion poll than going through 17 the machinations we' re doing in trying to really find out what 18 the advantages and disadvantages of particular rules in the 19 s tudy are .
20 DR. MILHOLLIN: I don't think one is inconsistent 21 with the other, John.
I
() 22 I don't think a careful study is inconsistent with (enf-t3 23 finding out what the public thinks.
l %)
l 24 co Feder:J Reporters, Inc.
25
809.04.1 41 pv 1 MR. CHos It may not be, but I am not sure I would
, 2 give it the emphasis and the significance that Steve has sort b 3 of enunciated a few minutes ago, a few seconds ago.
4 DR. MILHOLLIN: I guess my view would be that that's 5 one of the factors we have to take into account when we decide 6 what we reconmend. It could be that that's a very important 7 f actor, or it could be that it's not.
8 MR. CH02 And you think you'll get what you're 9 perhaps. thinking you might be getting by going to the Boston 10 area for that? )
11 DR. MILHOLLIN: Well, I don't know. It seems to me 12 the Commission is concerned with the view of the process by the 13 'public as legitimate or not, because I think the Commission 14 f elt when it was deciding the Seabrook appeal it was in a
() 15 rather embarrassing posture with respect to the public's view 16 of the legitimacy of the process.
17 So, I guess I would say that that factor is 18 i mp ort a n't . Whether you can find out the public's view as to 19 the process by going up to Boston and inviting people to come 20 in and talk to you is another question, and I have my 21 reservations about that, too.
22 I would be willing to push in favor of going there 23 If I thought that we could get what we're af ter by going to get 24 the public's views. I am not sure that we have any a ssurance 25 that we will .
(]).
(Z) .
e- 3
i809.04.2 42 pv 1 MR. OSTRAC]l* I have in the past expressed my 2 serious doubts whether we will actually get the sort of public i 3 turnout that would be useful for elucidating the views that I,
'4 _for one, indicated I wanted to hear. And I don't know if 5 having a.public hearing up there will do any good right now.
6 I seriously doubt that it would.
7 But the point that I was responding to was the S inferen ce that I thought perhaps some members of the group were 9 makings that even if we could obtain those views, they would 10 not be of interest. On that point I disagree. It may not be 11 possible for us to get very good evidence on those views, and ,
12 we may therefore be forced to simply put that question back in 13 the Commission's lap.
14 But I am rather confident that the Co.mmission, or at !
15 least the Commission that set us up, was very concerned about 16 those questions. If we're unabie to get answers on them and 17 data on them, that's unfortunate. But the questions are real l 18 and legitimate. I 19 MR. CHos Let me make my position clear. I think 20 the record ought to be clear on this point. I don't want to 21 have what I said misconstrued to indicate that I don't value j l
22 public input into our study. I think everything we've done has i 23 been geared to getting public participation. But I do 24 seriously question whether we will get the kind of public 25 participation by inviting them to a meeting such as we have O
l
809.04.3 43 pv i been holding here today, for example.
73 2 DR. MILHnLLIN Well, yes.
U 3 MR. CHos l
If all we're doing is transferring from a 4 location to Boston and proceed.ing the same way as we're doing, l 5 I don't think we're going to get. the kind of public response t
6 that I have heard.
i 7 MR. FRYE2 I certainly agree with that.
I l
8 MR. OSTRACH: An d so do I .
9 DR. MILHOLLIN: Probably what we should do then is 10 just decide that we're going to separate the task of getting
.11 public views from the task of having a meeting and. treat it i
12 separately. That is, we could have our normal meeting or not, i l
13 wherever we want to have it, but then decide whether we're l
14 going to take the step of going somewhere else specifically to
() 15 get public views and then set up a system for ge tting the best .!
l 16 public views we can.
l 17 MR. OSTRACH2 I think that's a good point. John.
18 DR. MILHOLLIN: So why don't we just separate those 19 two subjects, and schedule our meetings as meetings, and then l
20 take up the question of going out for public input somewher?
21 else as a separate question, and handle it that way.
22 MR. FRYE: I think that way would be much more 23 productive than going up and having a meeting.
24 DR. MILHOLLIN: I don't see any point in going up D
(,) 25 there just to talk to each other.
O
809.04.4 su pv 1 MR. OSTRACHs It would still be a meeting, for 2 purposes of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
O 3 MR. SEGE Mr. Chairman I would like to place a 4 piece of information in the record as background for this 5 discussion. I have counted the numbers of members of the 6 public present at this meeting, and that number is s one.
7 MR. MEUSER: About te be zero. Thank you.
8 DR. MILHOLLIN: All right.
9 MR. CHos We might ask our public member whether he 10 might have any observations he would like to pass on on this
.11 point of having a meeting out.of town.
12 MR. MEUSER: I would agree with the point last made, 13 thac it would be somewhat f ruitle.ss to go out and have a 14 meeting such as this. I find it somewhat interesting, but as
] () 15 far as substantive input, it was not available for me, if I 16 would have chosen to do so. And I don't think any member of <
l 17 the public would get any substantive f eeling for the issue by l I
18 sitting in on a meeting like this.
, 19 Obviously, you have a lot of planning to do for your c
20 workshop, and it was necessary. But as far as getting public 21 input, I would agree with the point last mades that it would 22 have to be something specifically directed toward that.
23 DR. MILHOLLIN: Thank you very much. ;
1 24 MR. MEUSER: Thank you. !
25 DR. MILHOLLIN: Then, if we all agree we should
(])
V t
i
m 8'09. 04.5 45 pv 1 separate the question of having meetings from the question of 2 getting public input outside of Washington, can we go ahead V 3 then and schedule our next meeting for the first Friday in 4 August here, and postponc f urther consideration of the question 5 _of public participation for the time being?
6 MR. OSTRACH: Our next meeting after the workshop 7 m eeting?
8 DR. MILHOLLIN: Postpone it to that meeting, yes.
9 MR. OSTRACH I am sorry. I didn't make myself 10 clear. You said " schedule our next meeting for the first
.11 Friday in August"?
12 DR. MILHOLLIN2 I am sorry. Our next meeting will 13 be scheduled for July 19, which is af ter the workshop. That's !
14 your point, right, Steve?
O is "a osra^c"> re -
16 DR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
17 MR. SEGE: As a matter of fact, the workshop itself 18 is considered a port of the meeting of this committee isn't 19 it?
20 MR. OSTRACH: Yes.
21 DR. MILHOLLIN: And we will postpone scheduling 22 further meetings until then.
23 Any other matters which anyone would like to place 1 24 on the agenda before we go on to the nominations for 25 participants?
l Q l
- d 4 m %- 4 -+-
9 sJ-e . A .s-- -
e..-.+_ -._ .- m -- mu5e * - $
809.04.6 46 pv 1 MR. SEGE: Mr. Chairman, I have received two 2 responses to the questionnaire. I may be one or two days O 3 behind docketing on that. But at an appropriate time, if an f-4 evaluation.of these responses is assigned to someone, I guess, b
5 tell me, and I will get those repsonses to pass on to the l
6 person who will be look.ing at tnem. I 1
7_ DR. MILHOLLIN: Very well, the only remaining item l 8 on the agenda I have here.before me is this nomination of l
9 Dr. Kepford. I did not receive a curriculum vitae for )
J 10 Dr. Kepford in the le tter I have. The letter I have is a Xerox
.11 copy of what I presume is an original of the letter. The Xerox !
12 copy I have includes a statement by Dr. Kepf ord and 13 Dr. Johnsr ud. That statement was given to the House Interior 14 and Insular Aff airs Committee -- excuse me -- the House
() 15 Interior and Insular Af.f airs Subcommittee on Energy and the 16 Environnent.
17 Do any of you have any further materials on this 18 subject, naterials beyond those I have?
19 MR. OSTRACH8 I have a letter that I received from 20 the State of Delaware nominating Dr. Kepford. Is that the same 21 letter that you have?
22 DR. MILHOLLIN No. The letter I have is signed by 23 Phyllis Z1tzer, who is a board member of the Environmental 24 Coalition on Nuclear power. I have no letter from the State of
(]). 25 Delaware.
O,
~
809.04.7 47 l pv I MR. OSTRACH: It wasn't from the State of Delaware.
2 It was from a person in the State of Delaware.
I) 3 DR. MILHOLLIN: I have nothing from anyone in the 4 State of Delaware.
5 George, do you have any further materials on this 6 subject?
7 MR. SEGE: No, I do not. I saw what came in to 8 Steve that was primarily in connection with the opinion survey 9 questionnaire. But, incidentally, it also indicated the 10 nomination of Dr. Kepford as the candidate for participation
.11 in the workshop. That letter bore the date of January 19, !
12 and --
1 13 DR. MILHOLLIN: You mean June? )
14 MR. SEGE: Pardon me. I mean June 19. That is
() 15 correct. But it bore a July 2 stamp of the date on which it 16 was received in docketing. And I don't know what happened in 17 between. So, we actually received lt considerably af ter the 18 date that we are trying to affirm the list of participants.
19 DR. MILHOLLIN: rie ll , I have posed that since we 20 don't have before us materials which are adequate for us to 21 decide what to do about this nomination, that I work with 22 George and Steve and get the materials together, and then we 23 will make a decision. Is that agreeable?
24 MR. CHos That's(niiz(enough.
(]) 25 DR. MILHOLLIN: Is that agreeable to you, Steve?
O
1 809.04.8 48 i l
pv i MR. OSTRACH3 Tha t's fine with me. I 2 DR. MILHOLLIN: Does anyone have a comment on the .
.(
3 general question of whether Dr. Kepford or Dr. Johnsrud should '
4 be added to the panels. which you would like for us to take into
)
5 account when we discuss It among ourselves? l 6 MR. CHos Are they both representatives of the same )
1 7 organizations, or do they represent different ones? l 8 DR. MILHO.LLIN I think they both represent the same l 9 organization.
l 10 MR. OSTRACH: They in the past, to my knowledge,
.I l have partlepated together in interventions. And at least my 12 tentative would be that if we consider putting either on, it !
13 would only be one, not both. I would expect that they would 14 probably understand that. And most likely, if one were named, O(_/ 15 both of them would come to the meeting, anyways one on one side 16 of the table and the other on the other.
17 DR. MILHOLLIN: That exhausts my list of topics for 18 the day. Does anyone else have subjects of discussion?
19 MR. BERSON: Returning to the last item, 20- Mr. Chairman, I would just request that a determination be made 21 as soon as possible so that the necessary contractual 22 arrangements and so on and so forth could be made in a short 23 time.
24: DR. MILHOLLIN: Did you think it would be possible
() 25 still to make those arrangements?
O
$09$04.9 49 rnt- 1 MR.'BERSON: I think' it might be possible, yes. But 2 the sooner, the better.
O 3 MR.oCHos Bruce,.just for our information, could you l g-- 4 sort of describe generally what arrangements have been made to l
t 5 . bring'these people for the study? "
6 MR.-BERSON: Okay. The individuals that have been 7 selected by.the committee had been contacted informally by [
8- various committee members. . A list of those individuals was 9 provided to the Division of Contracts, who then contacted them 10 in an effort to determine their availability and any .f ee that >
.1 1. they may require to attend. And various documents have been 12 prepar e d - paperwork, essentially -- to justify inviting these 13 people here and to begin the formal proctirement proce ss. :
14 My understanding is now that all the initial )
() 15 paperwork has been completed and is in the Division of l
16 Contracts. I believe it's just a matter now of mailing the l
17 contracts to the people for signature.
18 MR. CH02 Are we actually engaging these people 19 under contract for the study?
20 MR. BERSON: Yes. Those who are not NRC employees.
21 DR. MILHOLLIN: Including part-time employees.
22- (Laughter.)
! 23 DR. MILHOLLIN: That exhausts the items that i-24 everyone has to discuss today?
[({)-
t 25 Very well, the meeting is adjourned. J I .
1 4
l
r 309.04.10 50 -
pv i (Whereupon, at .)1s15 a.m., the meeting was 2 adjourned.)
en 4 3 * *
- p 4 V
5 6
7 ;
8 9
10
.11 12 13 14 O. i5 .
16 17 l 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 O 25 O