ML20196K472
| ML20196K472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/02/1979 |
| From: | NRC - ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION DURING ADJUDICATIO |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACCA, NUDOCS 9903260301 | |
| Download: ML20196K472 (155) | |
Text
- .. - .-. . - - . - _. .-.. .- -. - . .- - ... . - . . ~ . - . . - . - - , - - . . . . . . . ..
I 1
b y ...-
l V' l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM133 ION
[ },
Lp ij l IN THE MATTER OF:
1 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR l POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION l DURING ADJUSTMENT -
THIRD MEETING
>Q <
j l
I' Place Washington, D. C. .
Date - Friday, 2 March 1979 Pages 1 - 154 !i a6 I at e l -
! m _ .. ,
l- (202)347 3700 t
j (] ACE FEDERALREPORTERS,INC. !
OfflaalReporters e,,--- Au North Capitol Street
}fbb z
, 9903260301 790302 Washington. D.C. 20001 l PDR 10CFR I
PT9.7 PDR NATIONWIDE COVERAGE. DAILY .
. ,J ._.
._ j
1 1
! m 3065' I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- (J 2
tcpn 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
david 1
- l 4 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR l POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION l ,
DURING ADJUSTMENT 6
THIRD MEETING 7
8 Room 1167 1717 H Street, N. W.
9 Washington, D. C. I 1
Friday, 2 March 1979 ,
i l
11 The Advisory Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m. '
12 .
PRESENT:
I4 MR. STEPHEN OSTRACH, Presiding MR. JOHN H. FRYE DR. MILLER SPANGLER !
15 MR. WILLIAM LOVELACE i
16 MR. PAUL COLLINS ;
gR. GEORGE SEGE !
MR. WILLIAM PARLER I I7 MR. JOHN CHO 18 MR. RICHARD IRELAND !
l 1
i 19 '
20 i i
i 2i l
22 23 .
i l
f Ah.: n.oorwrs, Inc. !
25 I
i
A .
~~
I INDEX 2 Page ORAL STATEMENT BY:
3
.'. Malcolm Phillips ,Debe, Voise & Liberman. 9
-4
= ,
. 5 6 ,
7 8
9 i 10 -
11 12 i 13 14 15 ,
i 16 I I
17 i i
J8 ;
I 19 20 I
'* 21 22 23 24 noonen,inc, !
25 l
2
("id2 I y P _R O _C _E E _D _I N G _S MR. OSTRACH: Good morning. This is the third 3'
, meeting of the Advisory Group on Study of Nuclear Power Plant Construction During Adjustment.
. 5 Gary Milhollin called me yesterday and said that 6
because of an illness he would not be able to be here today.
7 He asked if I could sit in for him at this meeting and try 8
ard conduct it. He said that he didn't think that this would 9
have to be a very lengthy meeting.
10 I don't see any members of the public here at f
11 this time to make a statement. If any members come, perhaps 12 we can provide an opportunity for them to speak later in !
O H 13 the session to' day. At the outset, I would like to personally Id apologize for not circulating to the group the notice of 15 this meeting that was published in the Federal Register.
16 It was approved by Chairman Milhollin two weeks ago after our I7 last meeting. And due to the snow storm and due to some I8 other business I had in the General Counsel's office that ,
19 I took me out of Washington, I simply wasn't here that weekend. !
20
, I finally telephoned and told someone to have it
. 21 printed in the Federal Register without having first 22 circulated to the group. I apologize. If anyone wished 23 to make any changes -- in fact, I have already received my 24 Akel Reporters, Inc, comeuppance because I have been told by contractr that the '
25 statement in the notice dealing with obtaining the views of I
. ... - . . .. - . - . . .- - - -.-- -.. - ~.. - . - ~ - . ....- ,
3 I
id3 the public is not in proper accordance with contracting 2
l procedures, and they are going to meet with me and speak 3
l ,
with Gary as to how we can correct whatever errors we have I -
d made in contracting pro,cedure.
. 5 As you can tell from reading the thing, it 6
certainly wasn't intended to contract anything. Apparently, 7
it was felt by contracting that we might have unduly 8
opened up matters to the public, and we're going to work to try to correct that. And I apologize.
O
- The second point Gary asked me to make was that the transcript of our last meeting is in rather poor shape, 12 and we would appreciate it if we could all look at our
.7
' 13 remarks in the last meeting transcript and make whatever corrections we believe are necessary to restore sense to 15 I our remarks.
16 Xerox those pages and return them to Chase Stevens I7 so that the corrections can be made and the master copy of 18 the transcript that is being kept for the record.
t DR. SPANGLER: Steve, does that also apply to the 20
. transcript for the first meeting?
l 2I MR. OSTRACH: No.
22 DR. SPANGLER: There was a minor technical error 23 j in'something I had said.
.A ke4 Reporters, Inc.
MR. OSTRACH: Gary didn't ask for people to correct 25 that. I am sure if there is something that bothers you and l !
l y
l.
i 4
('Nid 4 I you would like to have that corrected, there's no reason V
2 .
why it shouldn't. But he didn't urge everyone to comb 3 '
the first transcript as well as the second.
4 DR. SPANGLER: I must commend the first transcript.
S It was quite good. I haven't read the second one.
6 MR. OSTRACH: Okay, unless someone has any other 7
suggestions, I would like to go directly to the draft outline 8
for our interim report, which is, after all, the subject 9
of this meeting, which George Sege has submitted. ,
10 Does anyone have any general comments on the draft II
' outline?
I I
I2 DR. SPANGLER: I Fa curious to know about how N. 13 rigid these page guidances are.
Id MR. OSTRACH: Well, I think George would agree 15 that they are not intended to be rigid at all. George, 16 they are just basically your best guesses of what is I7 appropriate?
18 MR. SEGE: Yes, it is to indicate the approximate U
level of detail intended for each topic and to indicate 20
, roughly how the volume of material within the report is to 21 be balanced.
22 MR. OSTRACH: My impression is that. the extensive l*
23 dicussion that was required, for example, a detailed work l
jm 24 plan existed that would be put into the appendix rather than
$R., c .. inc. .
l 25 j the interim report itself. !
- - . .. - .. - . . ~ . ~ . . . . . - - . _ . - . - - . - _ . . - - . . . - ~ _ - ,
1 i
5 I
MR. SEGE: Well, not even that.
(O7td5 2
MR. OSTRACH: Or just even referred to by the 3l transcripts.
4 DR. SPANGLER: One of the things I didn't see
. 5 in the outline -- perhaps George can clarify -- that will 6
be dealt with, and that is the subject of the decision 7
crieria that we would like to propose to the Commission. We 8
are being asked to make a recommendation to them and it's 9
customary in SECY papers and other types of documents to 10 propose decision criteria and receive guidance from the II Commission as towhether they agree with that or have additional 12 decision criteria to suggest.
O 13 MR. OSTRACH- George?
Id MR. SEGE: Well, that would be a possibility. I 15 doubt that we are ready to go much further at this point l 16 than what is implied by the sceretary's memo of April 5 of 17 last year. We do in the schedule for the rest of our work 18 have a place for a general and detailed outline, and that l I9 will give us another bite at the apple in terms of possibly 20
, commenting further on decision criteria.
2l
, DR. SPANGLER: When did you anticipate that the l
22
, bite out of the apple would come, after we make our interim 23 report to the Commission or before, in so far as it would
- 24 lA 3 Reporters, Inc.
deal with decision criteria?
25 l MR. OSTRACH: Is that the second briefing, three i !
I I
l i
l l, _ _ . . -
- =
6 C id6 I to four months?
(.)
2 MR. SEGE: Yes. I would hope that the general 3
, logical structure of our work, including whatever further 4
guidance the group can develop for itself on decision criteria
. 5 would be documented in the detailed outline for which we have 6
no schedule yet. But item 4.5 in the outline for the 7
interim report has a place for putting a date on that.
8 DR. SPANGLER: That is, I gather you are putting 9
dates on these things, but yo uapparently, if I understand ,
10 your views correctly, do not feel we should be proposing l Il specific decision criteria before writing the interim report 12 for the Commission,to comment.
O 13 MR. SEGE: I did not have that in mind. I did not Id have decision criteria in mind, but I have not ascertained l
15 the views of anyone else on the subject. My own feeling 16 was that we were not ready to go beyond the indications of 17 .
the secretary's April 1978 memo to make it worthwhile to l
1 18 bounce decision criteria off the Commission before we have l 19 something more substantial to consider those decision criteria 20 i
, in connection with -- I 21 MR. OSTRACH: Miller, my impression on reading 22
. ' George's outline was that a fairly brief and general statement 23 of what will be eventually found out as decision criteria ;
24 could go in section 1.1 of the report, which is the e.ru n mnm. inc.
Ac.
25 introduction and background. It already provides, " Describe l
l 7
a id7 I General Approach to the Study." That's the second sentence, 2
and I thought that at that point we could indicate tentatively 3
what our general analysis would be.
4 It would be based upon some of the suggestions 5
in the April 5th memorandum from the secretary: generalized 6
cost benefit approach, attempt to minimize dislocations in 7
the licensing process, increase predictability.
8 I don't think that it will be necessary at this 9
time to, as I said, find out or define precisely exactly ,
10 i what the decision criteria are, but I agree with you that it's important that we let the Commission know the general 12 sorts of factors that will be affecting our decision.
I3 I think that can be done in a fairly general Id way in that section 1.1.
15 DR. SPANGLER: I would think that would be the 16 appropriate place for it.
I just didn't find the language I7 or the page length to indicate it would be there.
IE l MR. OSTRACH: I think you're right; that might be a bit longer.
20 !
DR. SPANGLER: Before we get off this topic, I I 21 do want to say for the record, the list of reasons for having 22 a study of this kind in the place, the five reasons that 23 were listed in the Federal Register notice, tre good and 24 Ace. eral Rooorters, Inc. valid reasons for having a. study. But I think they are 25 somewhat on one side of the issue, and I think the decision l
l M
l
)
8
('Nid8 I !
V criteria have to include a number of those elements, but I 2
th' ink it has to be more symmetrical in terms of reasons why ,
3 i
, l we might not wish to change the immediate effectiveness rule I 4
^
to represent that -- you know, those kind of objectives or 5
values.
6 And the scope of that is in the April 5 memo 7
because it says one fo the reasons for having it in the first l 8 palce.
l However, that puts it in the historical context, and
! 9 l
perhaps the reasons -- I don't know whether we really have !
10 \ \
i anything thatwent on the record, public record, about the !
II reasons for having it.
I2 But I don't think we are limited to historic l
l\~
l I3 reasons. I think, you know, we might even expand on whatever l
! Id the historic reasons were for having it.
II 1 MR. OSTRACH: At page 2 of th e April 5 memo from l l 16 the secretary on the Commission, so they desire a study to 17
! be made. They indicated the study should develop options l
18 \
vithout undue damage to the other regulatory objectives.
I9 So I think it's clear the Commission does ci-tainly 20 want us to look at other regulatory objectives, including 21 those that are furthered by the rule as it currently stands.
22
,. And I'm sure we all agree that should be part of our decision 23 criteria.
2#
kAord Reporters, Inc. DR. SPANGLER: Yes, and another decision criteria I i
25 might be positively stated, that it might lend support to l ,
i I
L
. . _ . . _ _ . . - . . _ . . ~ . . _ _.__. _ _ . . _ , _ _ . . _ _ _ _ ._. .. ..m_____
l 9 l 4
I id9. other ragulatory objectives..
3i MR. LEGE: Mr. Chairman, a couple of people in the !
d room have indicated that they don't have a copy of the
. 5 draft outline, and are slightly handicapped in the 6
discussion. Would it be possible to call a two minute 7
recess for me to run a few more copies?
8 MR. OSTRACH: Certainly, could you please, George.
9 MR. SEGE: Certainly.
10 MR. OSTRACH: Thank you.
(Brief recess.)
I2 MR. OSTRACH: Back on the record.
O' 13 A member of the public has indicated a desire I#
to make a public statement at this time. Could you please 15 stand and identify yourself for the record.
16 MR. PHILLIPS: My name is Malcolm Phillips from 17 the firm of Debe, Voise,and Liberman. V-o-i-s-e and 18 L-i-b-e-r-m-a-n.
" This 'is a Washington based law firn that deals 20 primarily in utility clients.
. 21 j At the outset I would like to cay that we consider 22 certainly the group's efforts in this area to be extremely 23 important, important not only to the stability of the licensing 24 1
'A ksi Reporters, Inc.
process,'but important also to the viability of the nuclear j 25 energy program itself. And this is certainly one of the I
l' l
- - , _ + - - . -
10
(~'\ id10 I reasons that we have attended both of the meetings, all v
2 three of the meetings, and filed the appropriate comments, 3
and will continue to do so in our attempt to support this 4
group and also to provide a quantum of public information,
. 5 perhaps from the utility sector.
6 In this presentation I would like to address four 7
areas if I could briefly, the first being w. hat we consider 8
the suggested approach that the group should be taking; 9
second, a slight discussion of tie scope that the group is 10 certainly considering; third, a suggestion on data ;
ll collection; and finally, just a brief conclusion on what 12 we consider the immediate effectiveness rule and stay 13 provd.sions to be current .and the applicability of it.
14
. Dealing first with the approach, we feel that
- 15
, the group's approach to the situation as a threshold inquiry ;
16 should answer three questions: the first question being, I7
! is there a problem; the second question being, what are !
I8 !
i the root causes of that problem, if any; and then, and only l l
i l then, delve into solutions to those particular root causes. ! !
20 Now, as a feedback loop to that solution process, 21 certainly all solutions and remedies should be weighed in j l 22
. light of whether they in fact do solve the problem or minimize 23 the impact and whether they create more problems than in fact ,
24 they solve.
A ord Reporters, Inc. !
4 25 By putting this kind of in the context of !
l l l
i 4 i
11 O ddll I the group!s efforts here, I think we all concur that U
2 Seabrook was the initial decision that really gave rise to 3, the group's inquiry.
4 So we contend that this group should first
.' 5 analyze Seabrook and any like cases to determine if that 6
is an isolated instance not likely to recur. In other words, 1 l
7 is there a true problem that actually exists. We contend 8
that if you analyze Seabrook and analyze any liek cases 9
which there certainly are very, very few, you will find that
! I 10 the root cause at Seabrook is not the immediate effect in
' this role, and not the state provisions, but it is more 12 liek inter and intra-agency coordination or lack thereof 13 i as the primary root cause.
Id Now, some have contended that one of the root 15 causes is in the inadequacies of, say, the lower board l l i 16 decisions. Well, we think the lower boards, the licensing I7 boards have done a meritorious job in this area. Of course !
18 they are statutorily formed and cannot be modified because -
19 of that statutory formation, unless it's legislatively done, I i
20
, but we do think they have done a meritorious job.
21 However, if the contention is that the problem is 22 in the licensing board's decision, then that should be what 23 the solution is revolving around. It should not be delving k,, 2 into other areas that may significantly modify or significantly; 25 affect the net licensing process that we currently know, i
12 idl2 l 1 And we cont.ent that this approach is a three 2
pronged approach: what's the problem, what's the root 3
j causes, and then the solution should be documented and-d produced in a report. And we think moreover that this J
5
! 1 documentation should go forward and be addressed in this l
-6 group 's final report.
7 We think that perhaps -- not necessarily on its l 1
8 face -- but at least through some implication that the 9
l group has skipped the first two questions and gone l
10 immediately to: let's figure out how to solve the immediate l II effect before finding whether this in_ fact is the 12 l problem, if any exists at all. I 13 Okay, the second topic I would like to address is Id (
l the scope. Now, during the two meetings I have attended, the l 15 j group has in essence sat down and gone over the Commission's !'
l 16 directive, and said, this is the scope we're going to adopt, f I7 which we think is most likely well and good. However, this 18 grouphas gone further, I believe and adopted some scope items that we contend has significantly broadened the 20 group's efforts. !
. 21 Now, our concern in this area is that by 22 broadening the scope significantly the group runs the risk 23 with their limited resources and limited time requirenents !
l !
24 S rs n. norms, inc. to file the final report is so diluting that. final report, as 25 '
to make it in effect somewhat not as effective as it could I
i i
\
12 ,
ci ^id12: I And we content that this approach is a three V- ,
2 pronged approach: what's the problem, what's the root 3
j causes, and then the solution should be documented and-
! 4 produced in a report. And we think moreover that this 5
documentation should go forward and be addressed in this I
group's final report.
7 We think that perhaps -- not necessarily on its 8
face -- but at least through some implication that the 9
group has skipped the first two questions and gone 10 immediately to: let's figure out how to solve the immediate effect / before finding whether this in_ fact is the IE problem, if any exists at.all, l 13 s okay, the second topic I would like to address is Id 4 the scope. Now, during the two meetings I have attended, the 15 group has in essence sat down and gone over the Commission's I i
16 directive, and said, this is the scope we're going to adopt, I7 which we think is most likely well and good. However, this ' '
18 l
grouphas gone further, I believe and adopted some scope l 1
items that we contend has significantly broadened the ! l 20 i group's efforts. !
i
- 2I l l Now, our concern in this area is that by l
. r 22 broadening the' scope significantly the group runs the risk i
23 with their limited resources and limited time requirmients !
g, , to file the final report is so diluting that final report, as 25 to make it in effect somewhat not as effective as it could
i' 13 I
t O idl3 be if the report was totally focused on the areas it's V
2
! supposed to be.
9
- i
, And we would just like to caution the board, !
d hopefully, that when they finally tit down and start drafting
.' 5 up the interim report, the findings, specifically the scope 6
items, that they are very stindful that this form of 7
so broadening the issues as to make the report not all that 8
effective or as effective as it should be.
9 Now, if the group wants to go ahead and explore ,
10 other items or perhaps even identify other items that 11 are of interest, we think that is fine. We think if an item 12
, comes up, somebody raises an item that has some practical 5 -
13 merit, is of practical interest, yet it is only tangentially T
related to the group's efforts, those items should be I
15 identified and put in the interim report to the commissing, 16 saying: Commission, these are some items that are important. l l
I7 If you want us to go ahead and further explore them, fine, !
18 we will go ahead an d explore them.
g I'
However, we think perhaps there may be a more 20
, appropriate forum for exploring these items.
- 2I MR. OSTRACH: Mr. Phillips.
22 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
23 MR. OSTRACJ: What are these areas in which you
, k ,, ,
believe the group has decided to go ahead with study of 25 matters that are beyond the scope of the secretary's April 5th l
l i
14 !
d <id14 I memorandum?
k) m I 2 !
MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not necessarily saying totally l beyond the scope of the secretary's April 5th memorandum l l
4 because almost any area that you raise -- and I think everybodyl
.' 5 whodoes work in the technical field knows you can relate it 6
to anything you want to relate it to by various words --
7 however, there are soma things that are so tangentially 8
related that it doesn't really warrant further examination.
9 As an example, I believe that the group adopted 10 as a scope item a discussion of -- I think it was B-1 --
II G or B-1-H as a scope item. How do the utilities currently 12 make the decision on whether to construct a nuclear power 13 plant or not.
And further, how should they make that decision.
Id I believe this is one of the scope items adopted.
15 I consider this is somewhat, if anything, only 1
16 remotely related to the construction during adjudication.
I7 MR. OSTRACH: Thank you. ,
l 18 l MR. PHILLIPS: Another possible item that would j i
I9 fall under that that would perhaps is more closely related 20 i but is certainly tangential is the input the group is going i 21 to make into the possibility of tying the finality of 22 the applicant's design into the application of the l
23 effectiveness role. Again, this is getting fairly far i
24 3
A wel Roorwn, lm, afield in some of the suggestions, but again that's another 25 item the group decided it would take up.
l,
- y. - . . _ _ _ _ _ . _
15 j (7tdl5 I At any rate, if the group feels they should Q. i 1
2 broaden the scope, we content there are other items that are i
3 i left out that should be included. Now, while we have not l 4
made an exhaustive listing of them, some of these are,
- 3 first, all items that affect the stability and the timely 6
completion of the licensing process, thus delaying the 7
schedules established by the utility.
8 Now, how does this affect construction during 9
adjudication? Well,anytimetheutility's'scheduleismodifiedl I
10 '
or delayed, certainly there is an increased emphasis on
' getting construction done as soon as possible to meet that 12 schedule or keep up with that schedule. That's just the O" I3 .
hard and cold facts of life. When a schedule is set, people Id are going to try to meet it.
15 Okay? So we contend, perhaps if you're going to !
i 16 broaden the issues, anything that affects this delay or I7 this failure to meet the schedule should perhaps also be j 18 considered;as an example, delays in the completion of the I'
staff review and evaluation and further delays in the l 20 issuance of licensing board decisions. l 21 l
There have been certain cases where these delays l 22 have been just astronomically significant. And I will give 23 you one shining example that perhaps you want to explore in 24 4 gas neoonen, inc. more depth. It's the Duke-Perkins case. Duke-Perkins applied 25 in March '74 to the Commission, and they still have not w_
- - - - - - - - - ~
o l
idl6 I 16 received a CP.
2 And it will be sometime, a couple more years, j 3p before they get a CP out of it.
f MR. OSTRACH: ,
4 '
Five or more years from now?
MR. PHILLIPS:
5; No, five or more years from when l i
6 they actually applied, which I think f I l
ar exceeds the Seabrook i 7
or comes close to the Seabrook analysis .
8 I think Seabrook was under five years .
MR. OSTRACH: 1 know;
' so Seabrook got its 1
constructionpermit --
11 MR. PHILLIPS:
There was some jogging around while the final language was -
I O i3 MR. OSTRACH:
They still haven't -- if it's
)
i finality that you 're interested in
, there's still a question !
before the appeal board and a question b f >
{ e ore the United and 1 6 States Court of Appeals for the First Ci rcuit.
17 18 19 L f
20 l '
> 21 gl ,
t 22 jj i q
23 ;
u i i
et Reportsra, Inc, ;
ei it i
16 Oq ddl6 I
received a CP'. And it will be sometime, a couple more years, 2
before they get a CP out of it. ,
3
, MR. OSTRACH: Five or more years from now?
MR. PHILLIPS: No, five or more years from when 5
they actually applied, which I think far exceeds the Seabrook 6
or comes close to the Seabrook analysis.
7 I think Seabrook was under five years.
8 MR. OSTRACH: I know; so Seabrook got its 9
constructionpermit -- '
10 MR. PHILLIPS: There was some jogging around while 11 I the final language was -- '
MR. OSTRACH: They still haven't -- if it's A
V 13 finality that you're intierested in, there's still a question I#
before the appeal board and a question before the United !
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. '
cnd 1 '
17 18 19 i 20
. t i
- 21 l
22 '
i 23 A ers Reporms, nc.
25
_._ _ . _ . _.._m .. _ _ _ . . _ . - - . , . . _ . . . - . .- _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _
.CR3065 17 M31tzer t2 l jl-1l
)
s 1 MR. PHILLIPS. That proves my point even better.
1 r 2 Duke certainly is a shining example, more than Seabrook was. '
3 In that particular consideration, perhaps some consideration j I
4 should be given to establishing hard and cold deadlines for the !
5 l
. Staff's evaluation, for the Staff review, and for the issuance i 6 of some kind of initial decision.
7 I know the New Hampshire decision that most likely 1
8 everyone is familiar with came out and recommended some of these !
9 items, and there has been some talk of this in other areas.
I 10 ! The second area that perhaps also causes unwarranted l I !
11 delays of a schedule, or could potentially cause unwarranted I f i
12 delays in the schedules, the current practice of allowing '
O. 13 intervenors coming into a hearing to contest contentions that .
I 14 they have not themselves raised. I o
15 As we all know, intervenors' contentions are generally:
16 fixed 15 days prior to'the first prehearing conference. How-17 ever, subject to good cause, they can be modified slightly 18 later.
19 Based on the Prairie Island decision of '74, I !
20 believe, intervenors are allowed to cross-examine, to do any- l
- 21 thing on other contentions that they have not even raised. l t
22 Now, certainly by allowing them to cross-examine, to l l
23 enter into, to do anything else they want to, in light of other !
24 contentions,.this_ brings forth the possibility of delays,
! Av(~).,e n.oon.,s, Inc.
25 increased delays, and further, the possibility of unwarranted l
l l
i
+ -- , . , , , - - - , + r , - - , , - - . - - , , . . . . .
jl.2 18
{ 1 interlocutory appeals.
2 These are, again,-just two examples of things that we 3 feel the group should perhaps go into if it's going to 4 significantly broaden the scope.
l
. 5 Again, these two areas are counterbalancing, and on 6 the other side of all scope issues that the group has currently 7 been discussing.
8 Okay, the third area I would like to discuss briefly 9 is data -- how is the group best going to assimilate the data i I
10 I into an -- in essence, obtain their data to formulate their -
11 opinions on various issues?
12 We suggest one method that perhaps has not been 13 considered, but that has been extremely successful in the past 14 is to ask specific questions to the public in the Federal I 15 Register and some other supplement. ,
16 This was used very successfully in the decommissioning I 17 group study, whereby specific questions were asked, and the .'
18 public's opinion was solicited in response to these specific i
19 questions. t 20 So we feel that perhaps the group, when it arrives :
I 21 at specific issues that are going to be important, should li 22 consider putting these issues out in question form, as opposed 23 to putting a broad statement callir. for public opinion on the !
(^}
A% :,e,9 Reoorters, Inc.
24 world out.
25 oftentimes if you submit a broad statement calling for I
. i
I'
ji 3 yg a
1 public opinion on all the issues in the world, that's in 2 . essence what you are going to get. Nothing is going to be l 3! refined in detail to give this group the specific information l
. I l
4 it perhaps needs to make its adequate evaluations. ;
. 5 In conclusion,.I would like to address a couple of 6 remarks to what we consider the applicablity to. meet effec ' -
7 tiveness rule. in the state provisions currently are. We contend 8 that the reasons for developing these rules in the first place 9 are applicable today as they were when the rules were first ;
10 l developed.
I 11 I:. short, this basic premise that the rules were l
12 developed on is that once an applicant has successfully O q 13 convinced the Staff of the completeness, the safety and the 14 environmental preferability of a particular course of action; 15 and, further, has convinced an initial licensing board, based 16 on all the evidence,of the completeness, the safety and the 17 environmental preferability of the particular course of action, l 18 then the burden should shift to those opposing that particular l i
19 course of action to show reasons for good cause why that action j 20 should not be immediately effective.
21 Now, we contend that this policy is just sound f
. l 22 administrative policy. Further, it is just fundamental l i
i 23 elements of fairness; and we contend that it is still as valid !
24 today as it was when it was first instituted.
Am- twvmeerwri,=. .
25 Now, the comments that I have made today are focused I l
6
ji 4
- 20 1
3 1 just on the particular group's interim report efforts and
%-) l 2 i further comments on specific recommendations or specific issues 3
the group may raise at later times we will certainly address 4 at that time.
. l
, 5 And I certainly appreciate the opportunity to address l 6
the group, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with 7
members of the group or the' group d'.self in further support of 8 this particular effort.
9 MR. OSTRACH: Does anyone have any questions for i 10 1 Mr. Phillips? l i
11 DR. SPANGLER: I do indeed, because the one point that, i
12 he stated in response to your question about what specifically 13 might be an expanding item in the scope -- I'm not too sure i
14 whether you are familiar with this proposal that I had in two l 15 weeks ago, whether you have a seen a copy of that, in which ,
16 that term was used. (Handing document to Mr. Phillips.)
17 MR. PHILLIPS:
I think I read it, but unfortunately i 18 i I've read so much material on this and various other items -- ,
19 DR. SPANGLER:
It seems to me -- and I have a problemj 20 with this term, " rational planning." I don't think it's a very,
. 21 good term to use.
' l 22 What I had on my mind when I suggested the addition l 23 of that really was a more circumscribed case study approach to 24 Ageral Reporters, Inc.looking at only those elements of rational utility planning '
-25 that dealt with the comparative uncertainty, and I think that i
i
jl 5 21 l
I was the thrust of the group's interest in having me develop 2 this particular memorandum.
3 And, in fact, I referred to -- in this memorandum, I l
4 referred to two of my own personal studies where I had explored l ,
\
l
. l 5 variability of utility planning, and I suppose every utility 6 that has done something -- regards their planning at one end of ,
7 the range of variability or the other, regards their planning l 8 as quite rational.
9 I did not intend this kind of a study to be a i 10 t witch hunt, documenting what an outside observer might regard ;
11 as inefficiencies in utility planning. In fact, I almost said l 12 the opposite,in an indirect way, by saying we don't want to O 13 study this variability. ,
i 14 And if you look at the 1pecific items that I noted, l 15 deserving of study, I think that more correctly characterizes 16 the scope of what I had in mind rather than studying all the !
i 17 variable elements of rc.tional utility planning that exist. e 1
18 There are just too many. And besides, one of the 19 problems in trying to develop rational plans is the 20 unpredictability of the future, the unpredictability of the l j i !
21 prices of relative fuels, the unpredictability of institutional j j ,
22 practices or legislative changes -- many other things. l l 6 23 And if things do not go well in terms of planning, I Q 2d -part of that might have been due to incorrect perceptions of the'
) A% operel Reporters, Inc.
25 future with regard to the utility. Someofthemmighthavebeenf i.
l
(- _ ,
. j l' 6 l 22 ;
i i
- - ("]p 1 .due to mismanagement of the util.ity, but other management
%./ !
2 i decisions, external to the control of the utility -- public 3 utility commissions are a very important source of disturbance i l c , ;
4 to what utilities would perceive as being rational utility l I
. 5 planning. i 6 And I would suggest, in the Perkins case, that that )
7 five-year had a lot to do with interactions between Duke and 8 its public utility commission. And this is a very common 9 problem that exists in the utility industry today with regard !
i i
10 1 to large-scale investments and base-load electric generating !
i 11 units whether they are nuclear or coal. l
't 12 So, I'm mindful of the fact that it would be counter- !
) 13 productive to try to establish degrees of blame or inefficiency i
14 on the part of all utilities or other governmental agencies f
15 that are responsible for what the public might perceive as 16 bad, inLuical results to their -- to public interest. And I 17 didn't intend it to be that encompassing. l 18 I just picked up on that phrase because it was in the '
19 Federal Register notice, and I wanted to -- I felt it was , l 20 productive to explore certain limited aspects of that problem 21 in the context of treatment of decisions under uncertainty. Andl 22 there are other cuases of uncertainty besides licensing 23 inefficiencies, or problems, or whatever you want to call them.
24 And we wanted to look at the various contributing iA si Rarm, Inc.
l 25 Uncertainty affects not only the causes to the uncertainty. l
l ji 7 23 l l
{} l 2
length of time for completion but the cost, the dollar cost.
And I have laid heavy emphasis on those two aspects of rational l 1
3 utility planning as a focal point of my study.
4 Now, that's all I-wanted to say in the way of I
}
.- 5 perspective, to get his reactions as to w?; ner when he made !
l 6 those remarks that he made this morning, whether he then 7 would extund them to this type of study that I now have 8 characterized more carefully.
9 MR. OSTRACH: I think that's a subject that you and t i
10 Mr. Phillips can profitably pursue -- I mean, that's a subject l )
i 11 you can be working on, you can profitably pursue it together.
l 12 I don't think there's any question that rational planning is. e
() 13 a subject that is at least mentioned in the Secretary's I
l l i i 14 memorandum to us, so it's clear we're not grossly exceeding !
)
15 the bounds of the task we are doing. ,
16 DR. SPANGLER: Yes.
l 17 MR. OSTRACH: And certainly Mr.'_Phillips comments l 18 have been helpful, and I think the two of you can dis' cuss the 19 details'6Y it. And if, in fact,- he changes your mind on the 20 use of your. study, you.will inform us when you prepare that part i
21 of your section of the interim report. i 22 DR. SPANGLER: Fine. And as a matter of fact, when ;
l
, i 23 we held this intermission, I did discuss with him that I would f 24 like to get together with him. But the reason why I went into 3
'A el Roorwrs. lm.
25 this detail at this point, he has now put before the group an i
L
24 ji 8 1 objection to something I had been asked to do, and one of the 2 stated purposes of today's meeting was to discuss this ,
3 particular outline.
4 And i thought it.might be helpful to the group, and i I 5 the subject we are about to take up, to have a summarized 6 response to this particular point that was raised.
7 MR. PHILLIPS: If I could make a response to that, I 8 would make a brief one. I think my major responses, or my 9 major response to the problem of perhaps overbroadening a ,
10 particular scope of the group's efforts was raised in light of ;
i 11 my knowledge of what the group is honestly doing, which is j' 12 based on the memorandum I have received, although I don't 13 remember reading this -- the memorandum I received plus attend-14 ing group meetings. l 15 And the group meetings -- certainly, the statement 16 or the scope items were not narrowly defined. They were very ,
17 broadly defined. And, as such, it's obvious to one who is i -
l >
18 reading the transcript or attending the meetings, which we have!
19 done, to get a misimpression concerning the actual breadth of i l
20 the scope items. i
. 21 Now, I think it will be very, very helpful when I l
22 sit down and look at the group's final interim report, where !
23 they sit down and specifically define and narrow these rather !
p 24 broad items that have been raised in the meetings.
- A:4d ers Rooorwrs, Inc. l ,
25 And then at that point perhaps it may be more I
, - - = ~,
ji 9 25 1 advantageous to make comments.
2 MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Phillips a 3 question, please? l
. I i 4 Have you seen the April 5th, 1978, memorandum from
/5 l the Secretary of the Commission to Mr. Gossick?
6 MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, sir.
7 MR. PARLER: Is your point that that charter to this 8 group is too broad or that this group is exceeding that charter?
9 I realize, by the way, in asking the question, that i 10 the instructions in the April 5 memorandum are not inflexible.
11 The memorandum itself provided for some flexibility, but l 12 certainly that memorandum is the point of departure for this O 13 committee in its efforts; and I would like to have your views l 1
14 in that regard if you don't mind. l i,
15 MR. PHILLIPS: In response to that inquiry, I don't 16 believe the group can exceed that particular charter, since it 17 has been so inflexible. )
18 (Laughter.) l 19 MR. PHILLIPS: You can almost study anything you want j 20 to on that charter. Plus, you can delete some of the 21 items that the charter, in essence, indicateL that 22 potentially, you ought to explore.
?
I 23 I do not feel that the comment,considering the possible l
24 extentions of the particular scope of the group efforts, is IA erst Reporters, Inc.
25 pointed to that particular charter however. I think there are l i
r-__--__ __ .
jl 10 26 1
other items which the group has included in their scope, based !
2 on other public comments, that I do feel perhaps has broadened l 3 ,l it significantly.
.' l 4 ;
Again, perhaps this is a misimpression based on just ;
l
. S
. the spoken word as opposed to what is going to be the end, !
l 6 refined, narrowed, interim report. '
7 But the point of the thrust of*'my comment 8 was that we caution you, when you finally do sit down and 9
refine these scope items, to be mindful of the potential of .
10 1 overbroadening the group's efforts to the point where the t
11 total effort is not as effective as it could have been if it l3 12 was much narrower.
13 MR. OSTRACH :- That's certainly a useful caution, j i
14 Mr. Phillips, and I hope the interim report will contain the i 15 sort of narrowing you are looking for. I rather doubt that it 16 will.
17 My impression is that Chairman Milhollin and most of 18 the members of the group are going to outline fairly flexible 19 scope items, and hope that we get from the Commission a sense i 20 of whether they wish us to discuss things broadly or to focus 21 in on very specific, narrow subtopics. :
22 It is, after all, the Commission which has i
23 l commissioned us. It is the Commission that will give us A
24 mi Reporters, Inc.
guidance, hopefully at several steps of our process. And it is 25 the Commission to which we must look.
l
i.
jl 11 27 !
I Now, 2 i the interim report I hope will be a working draft -- at least, will be available by the time of our r. ext 3 l J ; meeting on March 23rd.
- And certainly we would appreciate your !
5 comments,aswewouldappreciatethecommentsofanymemberofl the public, l on that working draft of the interim report, so I 6
that we can factor them into preparation of the interim 7
report, wl.
8 5 is due in the Commission the first week of i April. i 9 f And I hope at that time you will continue to be able i 1 10 !
to work with us on refining it and preventing it from being II j overbroad and dilutionary, if there is such a word, because 12 that's certainly something that we wish to avoid as much as (
13 you do.
Id i
Are there any other members of the public who wish I 15 to make comments at this time?
16 MR. MC GARRY: i I am Mike McGarry, and I am with the 17 same law firm as Mr. Phillips.
18 MR. PHILLIPS:
l9 Mr. McGarry was here primarily to assist in answering any questions you may have concerning 20 matters raised in specific cases, 21 such as the Duke-Perkins case that we have brought up. i 22 MR. OSTRACH:
I L
Paul, do you see the need to -- do '
23 3ou have any questions at this time? .
] 24 l wers Reoorms, Inc. (No response.)
f 25 MR. MC GARRY:
I'm sorry for coming in late, but, u
l jl 12 28 1 Malcolm, did you mention that if the scope is going to be >
2 . broad, other possible areas that we would suggest that would ,
i 3l be included in the scope -- you've gone through that?
4 To reemphasize on that one point, we l MR. PHILLIPS: !
. . . l
. 5 would certainly be glad to furnish a more exhaustive list. As !
i 6 I indicated, this was not an exhaustive list. If the scope is 7 going to be broadened --
l, 8 MR. OSTRACH: We would be glad to receive any of 9 your comments in writing, including the helpful comments you ;
10 i made today about the basic approach, scope suggestions, and 11 the data ones. l 12 In particuirr, if you believe there are specific 13 questions that could be usefully asked of the public at this 14 time in the Federal Registe; Irwho have been tasked with 15 drawing up Federal Register notices , will be very glad to i
16 read them and let the group consider them, because we have not 17 been getting the public response that we hoped for; and if j 18 specific questions would increase that, I think we'd be all 5
19 more than glad to adopt them. So your suggestions would be 20 appreciated. ;
l 21 MR. MC GARRY: If I may add one thing, and that is, j 22 having been on the firing line day in and day out, especially l i
'23 on some of the Duke cases, the thing that really sort of is !,
p 24 AuJeral Reporters, Inc.
lost.in the translation is how important every single day is.
25 I can go through the Perkins case, as an example,
jl 13 29 l
r-)
\_/
I abouthowyougetcaughtatthelastdayifsomethingnewcomesl c
2 up, and then it's an extra six months that's tagged on; so >
3 timing is very important. Every day is very important.
4 I would just hope that this group bears that in [
,' 5 mind, the effect of extending the time that a case is open for
{
6 new items only can further delay the whole proceeding.
7 MR. OSTRACH: I don't understand your point, sir.
8 We are discussing primarily the question whether construction 9
should begin when an initial decision is rendered, or if it 10 !
should, in some fashion or other, be held up or be potentially ;
11 held up. '
12 Are you speaking about dislocations in construction f i
N 13 schedules? l 14 MR. MC'GARRY: Yes. !
15 MR. OSTRACH: Matters like that.
cnd t2 -
16 MR. MC GARRY: Yes.
17 18 19 20
. 21 22 b
23 A erd Reporwrs, t .'
25 t
a
CR'3065 MELTZER:jwb- 30 i #3
- MR. OSTRACH
- As we repeatedly said, it is 2 ,
exactly that sort of f actual data that is one of the crucial 3 elements in the analysis with which we are charged; factual
~
4 data as to that sort of pyramiding delay I think would be 5 appreciated.
6 MR. MC GARRY: Fine. I think that is the point I 7 was trying to make, and we would be glad to furnish something 8 further in that regard.
9 MR. OSTRACH: With the understanding, of course, ,
i 10 that anything you submit will be matters of public record. l l
11 We can't get proprietary treatment.
12 MR. MC GARRY: Absolutely.
13 MR. OSTRACH: Then shall we go to the interim 14 report, itself?
l 15 MR. CHO: Mr. Chairman, I had a question on George's, 16 outline and Mr. Phillips' comments sort of reminded me of this 17 Particular point.
18 I notice he has a section on public participation i
19 in his outline and has allocated one-half a page. I'm not l l
20 sure what he has in mind. j 21 My feeling is that we need a section which l 22 discusses the comments by the various members of the public 23 in our report, particularly as to the suggestions of scope, i 24 and indicate whether we accept them or not, and why. ,
A wel Rmorwrs, lx. I 25 DR. SPANGLER: I would endorse that view. As a i
i
3-2 jwb 31 s 1 matter of fact, I would call attention to you regarding my r .,.-
2 suggestions of task reorganization that I submitted early on
- 3. in the thing.
. I
~
4 I had Task Number 6 prepare a brief description
, 5 ' of the role of public participation as related to the issues 6 of immediate effectiveness rule, plus a summary of public 7 comments received during the course of the study effort.
g Is that sort of what you had in mind?
9 MR. CHO: Generally, yes.
and bu#1 to But it seems to me that some of these comments are 11 quite significant, and we ought to indicate fairly early what 12 our views on them are.
(O r/ 13 MR. SEGE: Mr. Chairman, what Mr. Cho has suggested 14 is provided for in the outline in Section 2 under " Progress 15 to Date," rather than in Section 4 which deals with Work 16 Plans,. What is set up by public participation of the work l 17 plans is primarily to raise some questions with the Commission l about our interpretation of public participation guidance l 18 !
l 19 previously received for the conduct of the study. l 20 But there is a place in Section 2.4 summarizing l
{
21 briefly the recommendations and inputs we have received from I 22 the public, and whatever disposition is in progress.
23 MR. OSTRACH: Your suggestion, then, is that 24 Section 4. 3 is intended as -- to give the scope of future A e n orwri, t=. !
25 activities by the group to encourage public participation and l )
l l 1
-9 3-3 jwb 32 j what role future public participation would play in our 2 deliberations; whereas that fourth section in Section 2 would I 3 be the analysis of public comments received to date?
.. l 4 MR. SEGE: That i s correct.
,. 5 DR. SPANGLER: I guess my point is that I think --
6 and this was at the heart of my proposal to reorganize the 7 task -- I felt that the scope of the April 5 memo had every-1 8 thing but the kitchen sink there.
9 So, I mean, I couldn't have been dissatisfied i l 10 about enough keys on the keyboard to play with. It's just l l
11 that I felt we ought to have a more concentrated focus of l
12 things.
13 And I think, with regard to this very matter of 14 dividing public participation into two parts of our interim 15 report is not the kind of focusing of report-writing that I 16 think is the most effective.
17 I grant that George has great skills, and this is 18 just another point of view. I don't say that mine is neces- ,
i 19 sarily better than George's. It's just something else to
{
! 1 20 think about for the group. !
21 MR. OSTRACH: Why don't we go through the draft 1
22 outline step by step, and when we get to that section we can ]
I 23 decide whether the group believes that George's suggested i
24 approach should be adopted, or whether things should be moved '
s J Reporters, itic. !
I 25 about. l l
3-4 jwb 33 1 MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman, nay I raise some O 2 questions for clarification?
.3 At the last meeting, it was my understanding from
~
~
4 Chairman Milhollin that he would prepare a draft of the
, 5 Interim Report. It would be my assumption from what I have 6 seen and heard that the Chairman asked George to do that, and l
7 this is the product that this group should review.
8 Is my understanding correct? !
1 9 MR. OSTRACH: Yes.
10 The Chairman told me yesterday he would like it i l
11 if George's outline was used as the basis for the discussion 12 today.
l
( 13 MR. PARLER: Another question: Has the Chairman 14 seen this outline?
l 15 MR. OSTRACH: Yes, he has. He discussed it with l !
i l 16 me yesterday over the telephone.
l 17 MR. PARLER: Are there any points of view of his l
18 that would be worthwhile for us as a committee to know about i
19 at the outset?
20 MR. OSTRACH: He made some specific comments that
- j
. 21 I will introduce when we get to those sections of the study 1 22 scope. The general comment was that he was very pleased with 23 the study.-- the outline -- and he thought it would be a very 24 useful document for beginning our consideration of the struc-A wel Reconen, Inc.
25 ture of the Interim Report.
l l
3-5 jwb 34 !
1
% 1 MR. PARLER: Thank you very much.
2 MR. OSTRACH: Perhaps I should have said that, 3 George. I apologize.
- i 4 The outline that George submitted to the members
. 5 of the group will of course be put into the public record of 6 this meeting, as almost all of our internal memoranda already i 7 have been.
8 (The outline of Mr. Sege follows.)
9 l l 10 ,
l 11 , I i
12 O 1 i2
- 14 15 l
16 17 ,
18 i i
1 19 20 !
21 22 l
23 24 ,
AorJ* Reporters, Inc.
25 l !
I t
i
/' g ci UNITED STATES l y g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON l1 g jj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 February 23, 1979
%p* *** *q>T,/
MEMORANDUM FOR: Gary Milhollin Task Force Chainna'n FROM: George Sege, OPE g ,
SUBJECT:
DRAFT OUTLINE FOR INTERIM REPORT Enclosed is a suggested outline for the study group's interim report i prepared in response to your request.
l
.The outline is for a report of some 15 or so pages, with a set of !
enclosures containing another 15 or 20. An approximate section-by-section breakdown of page numbers is indicated, to suggest an approximate I level of detail intended for each topic. Notes under subheadings suggest i material to be included. Some adjustments will undoubtedly be found i necessary as the writing progresses. .
I I am sending a copy to all study' group members, to assist them in i formulating connents, in preparation for settling on an outline at our March 2 meeting. 1
Enclosure:
Dft Outline of Interim Rpt--Study Group on Construction During Review cc: John Cho, ASLAB, w/enei.
John H. Frye - III, ASLB, w/ encl . i Stephen Ostrach, OGC, w/ encl. '
William Parler, ELD, w/ encl.
Richard Lovelace, MPA, EDO, w/ encl.
Paul F. Collins, DPM, NRR, w/ enc 1.
Richard E. Ireland, DSS, NRR, w/ encl.
, Miller B. Spangler, DSE, NRR, w/ enc 1.
L CONTACT:
George Sege, OPE 63-4 3302 i
b I y . - - . . .-
- . = = . . .
( .
Study Group on Construction During Review
~ DRAFT OUTLINE OF INTERIM REPORT (George Sege, February 23,1979)
- 1. INTRODUCTION (About2pp.)
1.1 purp'oseofReport(1/4)*
Respond to Commission direction of April 5,1978, Report pro- '
gress to date. Describe general approach to the study and interpretations and possible changes in scope. Seek possible ,
Commission comment on scope and plans generally; also seek '
)
Commission guidance on some specific stated questions (0L's, i fuel-cycle facilities, funding for outside inputs).
1.2. Background (1) i Seabrook decision. Chilk memorandum of April 5,1978. Set up !'
, as. advisory committee. Milhollin selected as Chairman. First !
meeting February 2,1979. This interim report due within i 60 days. Final report November 1,1979.
1.3 Study Group Membership (1/2) 'I List. (Name, title, office) i.
. 2. PROGRESS TO DATE (About 2 pp.) '
Dates of meetings, subjects, decisions. Memoranda -exchanged.
Public participation; recommendations from public. Reference to enclosures (FRN's; transcripts, memoranda in docket--available
. on request from Secretariat) t
- 3. STUDY SCOPE (About 6 pp.)
3.1 Interpretation of Study Scope (1)
Nothing in Chilk April 5,1978 memorandum to be left out.
. Some additions, per B6 in that memorandum. List of items added (1 g, decisional processes of applicants; 1 h, practices of other agencies; 1 f, additional modification options, as detailed in 3.2). -
()
- Nunbers in parentheses after subheadings indicate approximate number of pages.
. v,- - m - - - - - -- x...- . --
~~
. , 1 O .
l i
i l
,. 3.2 Options for Modifying the immediate Effectiveness Rule (3)
[
Based mainly on Sege's memorandum to Parler dated February 7,
,- 1979 and Parler's remarks at February 16 meeting.
3.3 Possible Extensions of Sco'pe (2)
Comission guidance sought on whether to extend scope to include:
- a. OL's ,
- b. Fuel-i:ycle facilities Brief discussion of reasons for and against inclusion (based '
on transcript for February 2,1979). Statement of what study group. will do if Commission provides no guidance (not include now, but review bearing on OL's and non-reactor facilities later in study, as findings begin to emerge; report plans and recom-mandations to Comission at that time). .
- 4. WORKPLANS(6pp.)- .
t 4.1 GeneralApproach(1) '
Meetings, transcripts; task assignments; memoranda and '
discussions between meetings. Work phasin ~g: scope detailing.
information gathering, report outline, analysis and writing, review and public comment.
4.2 Information Gathering (3) h Based on memoranda. and discussion at February 2 and February 16 meetings. Item-by-item l (reference: items in Chilk memo-randum of A Cross-cutting items (inventory of rele-
- vant cases)pril .
5,1978)p ans Public input. l 4.3 PublicParticipation(1/2)
Public oral inputs at meetings; written inputs volunteered.
Consideration of whether one or more study group meetings should be held away from the Washington area, to facilitate public
. participation 'from other parts of the country. ,(Hold no meetings
, away from the Washington area, unless there should be much
!~ stronger evidence than is visible now that public's interest in and them.). potential value of out-of-town meetings would warrant
. - , ,v. ,,,.-c,
. . - l 0 .
Cross reference to 4.4 for possible funded inputs.
, 4.4 Possible Funded Contributions (1) .
Comission guidance sough 1! on whether funding could and should be made available for funding work proposed by public (e.g., i survey and analysis of intervenor viewpoints or friend-of- j court-type briefs for or against--or neutrally comenting on- -
retaining the imediate effectiveness rule). (
Reference:
Roisman suggestion at February 2 meeting and discussions at -l.
February 2 and February 16 meetings.) How much ? (Upper limit) !
i Study group plans if no Comission guidance is received:
solicit proposals for funded inputs, allowing potential pro-posers wide latitude on what they propose as useful. Then, j if after evaluation, one or more pro of funding, request (quick-reaction)posals are judged Comission worthy approval for funding specific items. Proposals to be evaluated as prospective study contracts, on merits of the proposals; proposer's need not a factor.
4.5 Overall Schedule (1/2) !
1 Dates of meetings already announced. Milestone dates: general i outline, detailed outline, establishment of writing assignments, ;
draft due dates, draft of recomendations," public input on :
partial or complete drafts, etc. Report submittal to Comission. !
Comission briefings (interim and/ final). (About 10 miles. tone dates.)
4.6 Modification of Plans (1/4)
Flexibility to interpret and adjust as work proceeds, within the general pattern outlined. ,
- 5. RECAPITULATION OF QUESTIONS ON WHICH COMMISSION GUIDANCE IS SOUGHT 11/4 pp.) .
, Recapitulation of OL and fuel-cycle questions from item 3.3 and of the funding question from item 4.4. Cross reference to 3.3 and 4.4 for discussion.
ENCLOSURES: (About 15-20 pages)
- 1. Chilk memo of 4/5/78 (8)
- 2. All Federal Register notices concerning (d' the. study (6) .
- 3. List of other relevant items (transcripts, memos, letters from public, etc.)
available from the Secretariat upon request.
_ . _ _ . . - . _ _ _ . _ _ __. ___ __ . ~_. _- _. _ . _ _ _ _
3-6 jwb 35 l
i l /~ 1 MR. OSTRACH: All right, Section*l.1 of the report.
l k.)%
2 So far, we have indicated that, in describing the 3 general approach to the study, it would be helpful to fill l
4' out the criteria somewhat to indicate roughly what our decision
.' 5 criteria are going to be, base'd primarily on the Secretary's 6 April 5' memorandum, and fairly elementary ideas of cost / benefit 7 analysis.
8 Are there any other comments on 1.17 9 MR. PARLER: 1.1, the comments on there appear to I 1
10 i me to go beyond the purpose. Indeed, it is kind of like an 11 executive summary. Is that what you had in mind, George? {
12 MR. SEGE: No, I was thinking of limiting Item 1.1 13 to just the statement of the purpose or purposes of the la report.
15 I wouldn't think that if we put decision criteria ,
i 16 into tha Interim Report that 1.1 would be the place for it. I i
17 MR. PARLER: I wasn't suggesting that --
18 MR. SEGE: I did not view it as a summary; I l l
. I 19 viewed it as just a very mir.or expansion of what is already l l
20 there, as to why we are submitting this report at this point l
. 21 and the substantive matters would be dealt with subsequently.
22 MR. PARLER: That would be my understanding, also.
l 23 But under 1.1, under " Purpose," it says: Respond to the i
i 24 Commission's direction; report the progress to date; describe ,
fA d Recewrs, im.
! 25 the general approach to the study; and interpretations and
r l
l 3-7 jwb l
36 l g-) 1 possible changes in scope; seek possible Commission comment NJ 2 on scope and plans generally; seek Commission guidance ;
3 on some specific stated questions; et cetera.
4 Now I am not an expert in these matters, but
.' 5 certainly it would seem to me under something that is 6 entitled " Purpose," that that statement of purpose is a fairly 7 narrow thing.
1 8 Apparently, what is contemplated to be covered under 9 that statement of purpose goes much beyond a statement of i i
i 10 purpose It doesn't matter to me, but I am just trying to i 11 understand what you have in mind.
12 MR. SEGE: I was not thinking of anything more 13 than what you have read, just fleshed out a little bit. And 14 that the quarter-page suggestion there is to indicate that 15 what it says there in the outline is just about it. ,
i 16 Our purposes -- the purpose in submitting the l
t 17 report is to respond to what the Commission told us we should j 18 do within 60 days, and this is the list of purposes to ,
I 19 translate these into Items A, B, C, D, or whatever, and that l I
20 is it.
l 21 Now that is all that I had in mind for this I 22 purpose statement.
23 MR. COLLINS: Are you saying we're going to tell i 24 the Commission that one purpose of the Interim Report is to A J
' R oorwes,lm.
25 seek additional guidance?
l
)
3-8 jwb 37 i
~s 1 MR. SEGE: That is correct; and say just that, and -
V.
2 possibly identiff the two or three subjects.
3 MR. COLLINS: And give the specific questions more 4 meaningful writeup later on in this report?
. 5 MR. SEGE: Exactly.
6 DR. SPANGLER: It seems to me like a condensed 7 table of contents is what you had in mind here, selecting 8 certain elcments that you wanted to highlight.
9 MR. SEGE: No, it is not arranged as a table of ;
I 10 contents, but rather as -- I really don't know what better 11 .w ord to usc, except " purpose of the report."
12 MR. OSTRACH: So when you say " describe general
/~T
\.J 13 approach to the study," what you had in mind was the sentence 14 that said, "One of the purposes of this Interim Report is to l 15 describe the general approach to the study, which will be j 16 done someplace down below"?
17 MR. SEGE: Exactly.
f l
18 MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman, I have a thought, or a !
l 19 comment, a suggestion which may be constructive.
20 It would seem to me that, at some point early on 21 in this Interim Report, it may be useful to summarize what the I l
22 group deems to be the essential items that it wants to present 23 to the Commission, to inform the Commission on, and to get 24 further Commission guidance on. ,
A el Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. OSTRACH: How do you see that fitting into the l,
3-9 jwb 1
38 l l !
l j Interim Report? Are you talking about a summary, really?
\ i 2 I mean, the report is going to be a fairly short !
3 document. My impression is on the order of what, 12 or 15 i 4
pages, George? The whole report?
1
. 5 MR. SEGE: That's about right, roughly. l 6 I made up the outline, Mr. Chairman, with the j 7 thought in mind that it should be brief enough that the 8 Commissioners should be able to read. it all. And that, at 9 this point, the details of the nuts and bolts of our thinking 10 processes would not be of such great interest to the Commission;I l i
11 but that we ought to perform for the Commission the service 12 of selecting for their attention those things we considered j p
d 13 particularly important for them to know at this point in order ;
s 1
ja to give them an option of providing further guidance, and 15 those things on which we have some uncertainties or questions 16 where we would particularly welcome further guidance.
j7 But I would be rather careful not to obscure this 18 essential content of the report by detail that the Commission I
19 has appointed this group to
- worry: through, rather than bring ,
i i 20 it back to the Commission. !
i
[ 21 In that sense, I am very much in sympathy with l 22 Bill Parler's thought that the report should identify 23 and concentrate on the few most important essentials.
24 I hope that the headings and general discussion
- A el Reporms, Inc. !
25 under them on this outline will provide the flexibility that l I
i
3-10 jwb 39 i is needed for the perceptions about what is significant and 2, what is essential to fit in as the report is being written.
3l '
MR. OSTRACH: Bill, you didn't have in mind details,'
l 4 obviously. You had in mind something like a Section 1.4 L .' 5 entitled " Basic Approach," say a half page, a paragraph?
6 MR. PARLER: I don't know, Mr. Chairman, what 7 specifically I had in mind. I would have to wait until I 8 see the final report.
9 However, George's response to my suggestion has j 10 gone a long way, at least at this point, to alleviate any 11 concerns I may.have had.
12 As I understand George, there is going'to be very 13 little fat in this Interim Report; that the report, in its s
14 entirety, will deal not with nuts and bolts which will distract i
15 the Commissioners from the essential issues that we want to i a
i 16 inform them about and get guidance on.
I 17 And indeed, if the report does that, the objective j 18 that would be served by a kind of summary highlight paragraph 1
19 at the outset of the report would be met, and therefore there l I
20 would be no need for a section that would deal with the i 21 suggestion that I made.
22 MR. OSTRACH: Then we can hold that, I guess, 23 until our next meeting when we see what the report looks like?
24 MR. PARLER: Certainly. ,
ei namnws, irw.
lA !
( 25 DR. SPANGLER: Mr. Chairman, I feel the same as
l 3-11 jwb 40
(~) 1 Bill does, that George's clarifying remarks.were quite u) 2 helpful.
l 3 I would, however, like to ask George -- he said '
l I 4 that if decision criteria is to be included, he felt that
.' 5 Section 1.1 was not the place for it.
6 And I would like to ask him where he thinks it 7 mignc ae inserted.
and #3 g 9
f I
10 '
11 a 12
) 13 14 I
, s 15 :
16 I I
t 17 l
18 i
19 20 l
. 21 l
22 23 lM Lwenummn,ne.
! 25 l
CR 3065 41 MELT *ER l t-4 mte 1 1 MR. SEGE: Well, just off the top of my head, I would l
2 F thinh either under 3.1 or in a special section under Item 4 h
t.
l 2"r that would be created for the purpose, 4 MR. OSTRACH: Under general approach, perhaps?
Although it is not within the terms of the general approach as
~
i , 5 6 you have discussed it there.
I 7 MR. SEGE: Mell, it could be, if we say just a few 8 words about it, perhaps, under general approach. If we want to 9 make a bigger deal out of it, which I don't think we are ready 10 to, then it would be a separate subheading.
11 I don't know whether we are ready, Mr. Chairman, at 12 this point, to consider whether it would be worthwhile- to O
- s/ 13 include decision criteria, since we have not focused on it in 14 the group discussion at this point. But one possibility might 15 i be to ask for a brief write-up contribution that could be 0
161 circulated earl:t enough to the group so that by the next meeting b
it would be possible to reach a decision on it.
17):
18 MR. OSTRACH: Dy the next meeting, I hope to have l
19 i brief write-ups of all of the sections of the report. So if I
20 i this section were to be helpful, it should have some tie to some I
21 place in the report. Otherwise we would have to do that at the 22 l meeting anyway.
- 23 So I would look perhaps -- perhaps today we could 24 !; figure out one or two places where it may be useful, and whoever eral Reporters. Inc.
25 { is assigned to that section of the report could begin working on l:
f w + -
e , ~-
mts 2 !
42 -t I
l 1 that. I agree with you it might be helpful to float that u O-section perhaps even earlier than the rest of the interim 2 [l 3' report and dis tribute it, circulate it amongst the group, I
- I 4 because that might well be more contentious than the mechanical ,
.' 5 sections that are going to be written by me, I have a feeling.
6 MR. SEGE: May I at this point, Mr. Chairman, express 7 my own bias with respect to decision criteria? My bias is 8 against.doing it now. I find a fair amount of guidance on 9 decision criteria in the Secretary 's memo , and . the reference 10 ! to it and the adoption of what guidance is implied there is 11 certainly within the scope of the interim report as I envisaged 12 it in the outline.
13 But to go much beyond that, I would feel much more 14 comfortable doing it at a later stage, when we have gathered 15 0 nore information, and when we have had more of an onportunity 16 i to consider decision criteria within the context of the P
.i 17 j realities of the information that we find, so that we don't 18 develop decision criteria disembodied from the work to which ,
19 i! the criteria applied. .
l 20 i I would think that we would be more effective that I
. 21 way as a group, and that the Commissioner may have considerable difficulty giving us further guidance about decision criteria, i' . 22g! l l 231l in the absence of some very substantial amount of information l- f l that might contribute to their own thinking processes, that we A.,. _.... 24sj i 25 . just don 't have ready yet. It is too early in the study. We l
mts 3 43 i
q 1 l might have it in a few months, but we don't have it yet. On C/ l 2[ that basis, I would -- my bias now is that we should not make 2' a big deal about decision criteria in this int. erin report. My --
4 suggestion that perhaps something could be drafted for considera-3 tion, is primarily fer 'an, allowance for the possibility if I 6 might be wrong.
i 7 MR. OSTRACII: That strikes me as consistent with a Chairman Milho111n's approach, which is, as we are all aware, 9l datahirst, analysis second. And I think what you said about i
10 a general statement as to the adoption of the approach outlined 11 in the Secretary memorandum with little elaboration was what
- 12 I was sort of driving at earlier, rather than a specific deci-13 sion criteria section.
14 DR. SPANGLER: Could I respond to that?
!I NR. OSTPACH: Surely.
15 lr ,
16 :
1 DR. SPANGLER: Since I an the one that raised the 17 subject, I would like to state my views, which have an opposite 18 bias from George's. If we had frequent interaction with the 19 ;l Commission, I would thirk that the disadvantages of postponing I
20 i
\
the formulation of decision criteria night not be so important.
21 ,
I don't feel that the interim report in any way imprisons our 22 il flexibility to modify, add to or delete decision criteria l.:
23I ll formulated in an interin report.
Aer;l Reporters, Inc.
24 The purpose for doing it now is to get some feedback \
25 fron the Conmission, and I don't think they probably want to a
I l
I l
mta 4 4
L 1 i be frozen 'in on .their feedbach, either. But I think it is much
(:)
2: n re efficient for- then for us to say what we think the deci-e d
3 sion criteria by which we are going to examine options should ,
4 ! be , and get - feedback at that point, than to wait until we get
.' 5 a final report drafted and then get feedback, when our resource have been spent, and we do not have much tine to readjust. ,
6{
7 As someone contributing to reports from the staff ,
8 up north, we have oftentimes suffered from miscommunication or I
9;i failure of communication of this kind. And we bring a draf t i
10 i report to the Commission and then they say, this isn' t the right l l
11 rock, go back and bring us another rock.- And then they give us 12 guidance, more specific guidance of what is wrong with the j
'13 'first rock we brought then, j 14 And even the second round may not be a perfect reading 15 of the intent of the Connission, and one might go through three 4 16 ; or four draf t SECY 's, and it's very frustrating to the staff.
17 ' And I an all for get, ting communications on these difficult 18 natters going forward, the strategic aspects of the report 19 j structure going forth as early as possible, even though it isn't I l !
20 i going to be the last word and we will want to make adjustnents j I
. l 21 af ter we do our studies , and so forth. j i i
- I Hevertheless, I still think it is desirable to have 22{
- i l 23 ' some of this put before the Board -- the Conmission at an early i
! 24 ( stage, rather daan later, and we just do not have that many I
- .i m.oor m ,inc.'
l 25 places in our study design for interaction with the Conmission.
i i
- - ~ . . . - _-... - . - - -_-
.mte-5 45 '
i 1 This is a key point.
,-) I
! MR. OSTRACH: Does anyone have something on that?
2 ld ,
3} MR. CHO: Mr. Chairman, nay I suggest that it night i
\
\
w" .
h 4 help if Bill had just prepared a draft of what he had in mind ,
. 5 and circulate that early to the group, because I'm not sure I 6 envision what he meant by decision criteria at this point. And 7 I think that would help us all in deciding whether it would be 8 good to include such an item. in the interim report or not.
l 9 MR. OSTRACH: That's exactly what I was going to j 10 ' suggest. As George said and as Cromwell said before him, we 11 nust always be conscious of the fact we might be wrong. And I i
12 would find it very useful to see what you had in mind by ,
() > ,
U 13 decision criteria. If you could circulate that to the group, 14 , with the understanding that we will decide at the March 23rd l'
15 ' meeting, when Gary will be back, whether it will be helpful to 16 send that to the Commission either as part of the report or i
17 I separately from the report.
18 DR. SPANGLER: Okay.
19ll MR. SEGE: Would it be possible to c that in the next I
20 1 very few days?
- 21 DR. SPANGLER: Yes. And I feel the same thing about 22 l assignments that others will have for this report. You know, I l'
23 j really feel that we should not get these things the last week 1
24 h before our next meeting. I feel that where it is possible to mi neoormi, inc. j 25 1 even get a half of a thing for early attention of people or I
- . . _~. - ..._~.-. . _ .- -. _ - - - . - - _ - _ . -
mts 6. ! ,
l 46 .
-1 i maybe a complete unit in assignments to the rest of the group
\ .
I 2 [! at the earliest .possible time for reaction, it's going to lead 2 y to a much better . report than coming in with our target date for 1
4 i our draf ts for circulation in the last week before our next
. 5 meeting.
6 .MR. OSTRACH: Then do you suggest setting a target ;
7 date of March 16? That is two weeks from today.
g DR. SPANGLER: No. I suggest, for my own contribution, 9 I would like to have it by the end of next week in the mail.
10 But I would like to have some kind of --
11 MR. OSTRACH: I certainly won't discourage you from l
12 working rapidly.
13 DR. SPAMGLER: Well, I don 't see this as a big --
14 you know, these decision criteria - are typically put into r
15 3
SECYs, and they are not all that long. What are they, half a I
16 page or a page or something like that? Well, of course, if you 17 double-space or people triple-space and all that, you get very 18 few lines on dne page. And' that 's when I object to disciplining 19 1 ourselves too stringently on the page limit. But at any rate, I
20 i I don't think this is a major piece of draf ting in terns of
+
21 conte nt .
~
22 l I might want to suggest optional decision material ,
ill - i 23 ! which might nake for a longer draf t at this stage, one that the
- 24l "i group might feel it desirable to gc forward with. So that we l minaarers,Inc.l l 25 j might then -- I find it more efficient to have more material, it d
r
i mto 7 :
47l i
1 which you can cull out and delete, rather than rev up things 2 [ for purposes of discussion at the meeting itself.
e l'R. OSTRACH: I sense a consensus that if you can 4
3'] i 4 provide us with decision criteria, including alternative deci-5 sion criteria, as soon as you're able, that would be very 6 helpful to all of us, and we will consider it f urther.
7 DR. SPANGLER:' I will give that top priority.
8 MR. OSTRACH: All right, th en. Still staying with 9 Section 1, the introduction.- Unless there are any specific 10 ' comments , I would like to mention that Chairman Milhollin 11 suggested that he at least viewed that section the way George 12 described it, as a rather mechanical translation of what is 13 written into prose, and he asked if I could take the lead on 14 ; working on Section 1. And I have no problem with that. That 15 is all of Section 1, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. It looks quite dry.
16 ; All rigat, then . If there are no further comments to 17 Section 1, let's move to Section 2, progress to date. With one I
18 l exception that looks -- that also looks rather dry. Chairman
- l 19 l Milhollin -- apparnetly he believes that I am the prohibitionist l
20 ; here, because he assigned that dry section to me as well. One I
21 possible exception that I might want to raise with you, 22 q John Cho felt that the recommendations from the public that 23 I h we had received so far, the oral statems. today from Mr. Phillips.
11 4
(~} 24 j; Mr. Roisman's statement, the perhaps five or six written L,.ami neponen, ine. !
25 documents that we have received from the public, deserve a more i
i l
y ete 8 :
I i
48 1
extensive discussion, and at least preliminary analysis than I
~
2 { believe would be obvious from George 's outline .
3f
,' John, do you think that you could prepare a section 4' ,
' a subsection that would oe actually, perhaps, saying that the
' 'n i rest of progress to date is 2.1 -- that would be perhaps a i
2.2 analysis of public participation to date?
/
MR. CliO: Okay.
8 I
MR. OSTRACH: Fine. And I will do Section 2.1, which 9[ is the rest of what is presently listed as 2 I .
10 MR. PARLER:
This reference to decisions under 2, 11 12 that neans the decisions that this Committee has made to da MR. OSTRACII:
O 13 I believe so. The decisions I expect that George had in mind were procedural things, such as meetings 14
!! every two or three weeks on Fridays, and to prepare the interim 15 i report in this fashion.
16 h I
Did you have other decisions in mind, George?
17 MR. SEGE:
All cataloguing of the decisions made.
~
18
!! Some of them are effected elsewhere in the report that we have ,
19! U decided what to recommend to the Commission about scope, how to 20 f ace the work, that sort of thing.
21 I don 't think there is going to be much to be done under that.
22j i MR. OSTRAC11:
Ii I confess I hadn't thought that thro ugh ,
23 h either.
] 24 [
A2rsi Reportres. Inc. ll Do you think that you could provide a catalogue for 25 N me so that I can plug that in?
p!! And I think about it. We haven ' t gyqTegg4 p
mte 9 L
49 :'
i ! l
~
l gs 1 ! made that many decisions in our meeting so far.
r}
MR. PARLER: It is difficult for me to reconstruct 2 ['
1 l- 3 ] what decisions this group has made also, Mr. Chairnan, and
- . I 4 that's why I asked the question. !
, 5 MR. OSTRACU: I think that what we will find out ic 6 that there will be decisions of the magnitude of our momentous i
7' step of moving the meetings from 9:30 to 9:00 I 8 MR. SPAUGLER: Well, I would hope we would arrive at 9 a decision regarding my proposed case study, because I don't 10 ' think we can afford much time to get preliminary discussions 11 with prospective utilities underway. It seems to me we have to 12 agree to a general' outline of a format, and then seek utility
() 13
_ cooperation, decide on what would be a suitable group of wish 14 lists of case study possibilities, consult with utilities, get c . I 15 i their agreement, and then go bach and talk individually with ;
I 16 the utility about the case study outline and have kind of a i t l 17 trial run with them to establish uniformity.
18 Now, I would hope, out of today's meeting, we would
~
19 1 have a decision from this group whether to go forward or to l l 20 i i
scrap this whole idea of the sort of case study that I recom-1 21 mend. !
22 1R. COLLINS: This is one of the reasons I got up the l
! 23 l listing of construction permits in process in '72, so that we
- 22 i can go through it and come to this decision today.
l_ e n.aerms, Inc. j
! 25 DR. SPANGLER: Yes, and that was very helpful.
l
mte 10 50 i
1 MR. COLLIMS: I-thought we had decided at the last ;
D 2 neeting this was going to be one of the itens of business at
~
3; this meeting, to go through here and say, all right, out of all 4 these cases which ones do we want to look at. ,
5, MR. OSTRACH: Yes, I intended to do that.
I I was ;
l 6' going to do' that under Section 4.2, actually, the information i
7 gathering discussion.
c-4 8 MR. COLLINS: Okay.
i 10 11 ,
12
( 13 l 14 j i li 15 I
16 i
17 )
- I 18 I l
19 y I
20 l
! l
< . 21
. 22 i i .
j 23li
.' I eral Reporters, .
- 25 i I
4
51 0
)05.1 pv l- MR. COLLINS But I think.lt would be pertinent to
_ 2 put lt down as a decision this task force has made that we are 3 going to look at six cases, five cases, whatever, will be 4' determined, and this is how I want to approach the study.
5 I think we might get out of this business of 6 bringing in the wron9 rock. - . If they look at this in 7 the interim report, they very well may say, " Hey, you forget 8 two or three cases we think you should look at."
9 MR. PARLER4 I think we should identify the cases.
10 I agree completely with what. Paul has said. I think we should
.11 identify the cases and, if possible. Indicate those cases which 12 will receive particular scrutiny.
13 MR. OSTRACH: All right, section 3. 3.1, the t
14 interpretation of the scope.
15 MR. PARLER: What is meant by the first sentence?
16 MR. OSTRACH2 I think we are going to write a 17 sentence in the report that says* "At this time we do not 18 propose that the study group 211minate from the study any of
- 19 the items listed in Mr. Chilk's April 5 memorandum."
. 20 MR. PARLER: Certainly, we are appending issues.
21 questions before this committee as to what the committee i
. 22 intended to say in its interim report about paragraph 6, 23 paragraph 4, and certain assumptions that would be made about 24 paragraph 3 o.f the April 5, 1978 memorandum.
25 MR. CH0s I think that's very appropriate.
1
' ['N
\-)
o
l 52 l
0 05.2 -
pv i MR. PARLERs So that my comment will not be
. 2 misunderstood, Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to suggest in the
.. 3 least that all of these issues are not very important issues.
4 It is my understanding, however, that questions have been 5 raised.as to whether issues of the broad scope, the paragraohs 6 6 and 4 o.f the April 5 memorandum, should be addressed by this 7 committee, certainly, .without calling attention of the I 8 Commission to some of the concerns that have been raised about 9 the broad scope of the efforts that would be involved in 10 looking Into the matters raised by those paragraphs.
.11 MR. OSTRACH2 George, does that go along with what 12 .you intended in 3.17 l
13 MR. SEGE: I think that comments of that sort would 14 very well fit into 3.1 and would be appropriate. I would state i 15 the.m at. this point, briefly, with the expectation that when we ;
16 .come to the . work plans, the brief statements and 3.1 would be 17 rendered more meaningful.
18 MR. OSTRACH4 So , then, 3.1 would be amplified by
. 19 discussing our tentative views on paragraphs 6, 4, and 3, and 20 would also list the other. things that George has there in 3.1. '
21 MR. PARLER: The addition, Mr. Chairman, about the
, 22 practices of other agencles, is not really an addition, I don't 23 belle ve . I think that that was a.11uded to in the April 5 24 memorandum on page 2.
25 MR. OSTRACH: It's a general introduction to the ,
53 06 05.3
- pv 1 discussion of everything. I have done some work on that, by 2 the way, tha t I will be reporting on when we get to the s 3 appropriate section in the work plan, which. I guess, would be 4 section 4.2.
5 All right, 3.2, options for modifying the immediate 6 e ffectiveness rule.
7 Prof. M11hollin yesterday told me that he would like 8 it if that section, in addition to the materlal that George and 9 Bill generated in Georqe's memorandum and Bill's comments at 10 the Febrrury 16 meeting --
.11 MR. COLLINS Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but you 12 didn't indicate who was going to write 3.1.
gg 13 MR. OSTRACH: No , I didn't. I was going to V $
14 . volunteer someone f or 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 af ter we had discuss'ed 15 all of tham. But if the group thinks it would be better to j 16 discuss 3.1 by itself --
17 MR. COLLINS: No. If you f eel that they are so tied 18 in you'd rather make one assignment, go right ahead.
. 19 MR. OSTRACH: We.11, I was going to assign -- Gary 20 suggested assigning the same two people to all three of them.
21 MR. COLLINS: Okay.
, 22 MR. OSTRACH2 The options. Based, as George 23 suggests, prlmarily on his memorandum and Mr. Parler's remarks.
24 But Gary felt it would also be important to at least indicate 25 that the study group would also be considering all the specific O
v
54 0 05.4 pv 1 options that the Commission list 9d in the Secretary's April 5
_ 2 memorandum. I t wouldn't be ne ces sary, perhaps, to explicitly l
. 3 lay them out one after another, but a general sentence 4 indicating that and also the other specific options listed in j 5 the Secretary's memorandum. l 6 MR. PARLER: I certainly .would agree with that.
7 It's my impression at this tlme that George's options and my !
8 remarks on those options do cover a.11 of the options in the i 9 Commission's April 5 memorandum. I That was certainly my intent. (
10 It was not my intent to eliminate any of the options that were i
.11 raised in that memorandum. '
12 MR. SEGE: My views, exactly, Mr. Chairman. l I
(-)
\J 13 MR. OSTRACH: Okay.
l 14 MR. FRYEa l I would have one comment on the title of (
15 paragraph 3.2, which really is a semantic comment. " Options 16 for modifying the immediate ef.fectiveness rule" glves the I 17 impresslon we have already made the decision the rule ought to 18 be. modified.
19 MR. SEGE: That was not the intent. The various
. 20 options at the top level --- retention, repeal, and modification 21
-- are dealt wlth elsewhere.
. 22 MR. FRYE2 I didn't think it was the intent.
23 MR. SEGE:
24 But there was a subsection In the Chilk memo.
I forget what hi* number was -- 3(f) or whatever --
25 where I was tasked to provide that complete list of options 9
c 55 l0gc05.5
' \Yr pv 1 that we would be considering under that subparagraph.
, 2 amplifying the examples which were identified as were a partial
. 3 list of examples in the.Chilk memo itself.
4 Because of the discussion and interpretation that
.5 was . involved in the group's work on that particular subset of 6 options', I thought it would be good to dignify it by a specific 7 subsection in the outline.
8 MR. FRYE Yes. I thought that was your intent.
9 My point really was that I think it might be wise to 10 rewrite the heading and say " options regarding the immediate
.11 eff ecti,veness rule" or something to that e ff ect.
12 MR. OSTRACH: I certainly think we all agree that es 13 one . major option before the study group is retention of the U 14 present rule, and I don't think that George had in mind any 15 varia t ion .
16 MR. CH02 But I do agree that the outl.ine ought to 17 make clear the point that John has raised. I think it is a 18 point, because, as you know, we have already had a number of
. 19 comments from the public indicating that we should consider 20 ser.iously the question of retention of the present rule.
21 MR. SEGE: And considering retention as an option is
. 22 very clearly within the scope of the Secretary's April '78 23 memo.
24 MR. OSTRACH2 Sec tion 3.3, there are two ma tters I. 25 George lists that we have discussed as posslble extensions of
p l
56 0 *~.05.6 pv 1 the scope.
- 2 Are there any others that you believe perhaps should
+ 3 be listed? I am not aware of any others that came up in the 4 discussions.
5 There is the subject of LWA, the amendment to the 6 LWA rules, which is presently being worked on by, I belleve, 7 Standards De velopment. But that was clearly within the subject l 8 of the Secretary's memorar.dum, so I don't think we need to 9 . specifically ask the Commission for -- that's not extending the 10 . scope of the study, as i understand it.
.11 So, I suggest that we just continue our handling of a
12 LWAs.
13 MR. PARLER2 Is that study the same as what you 14 referred to as the 50.10 study at the last meeting?
15 MR. OSTRACH: Yes. That's what I intended to be f 16 r e f erring to.
)
, 17 MR. PARLER: I just asked that for a point of i
18 clearance. '
19 . MR. OSTRACH2 All right, then, that's the three l
, 20 sectionr of section 3.
21 Prof. Milhollin suggested that the most appropriate
. 22 persons to take the lead in working on that item would be i 23 George Sege and Bill Parler, although he indicated that he ]
24 wanted them to work very closely with himi he wanted to be 25 virtually a member of the drafting group on that section.
'(
57 0 95.7 pv- 1 Is that satisf actory with the group?
. 2 MR. SEGE8 It is satisfactory to me. Mr. Chairman.
~
3 MR. OSTRACH2 Bill?
. 4 MR. PARLER: It's satisfactory with me.
5
. MR. OSTRACH: Fine, then.
6 MR. PARLER8 I have one comment that I think should 7
be.made at some point in this outline. Ma ybe it is premature.
8 but I think it is important, regardless of how the scope of the 9 study comes out, especis ly If the study is going to be of very 10 broad scope, to emphaize at someplace in the interim report 11 what the main focus of our efforts are going to be.
12 And it is my understanding in that regard that the 13
) main focus will be on the application of the immediate
..U. 14 effectiveness rule at the construction permit stage and whether 15 that rule has resulted in a prejudice to environmental and 16 safety decisionmaking.
17 I would belleve it would be very helpful and 18 desirable for that primary focus not to be lost sight of, no 19 matter what the scope of the study 15.
20 MR. OSTRACH No w , you descrlbed that in a sentence, 21 and I .think that's a very good sentence, and I was hoping to
, 22 be able to write a sentence that sounded like that in section 23 1.1, whlch George indicated to me that that wasn't a good place 24 for. And perhaps It's not.
25 But I think that something like that, a summary of O
,, ___ -~
1
- j l
58 1
!Of"s05.8 l
(_) pv l i general approach, is a useful idea. May I ask for suggestions? !
, 2 I think lt would belong right up at the very front end.
- 3 MR. PARLER: That certainly would be my view,
-4 Mr. Chairman. j
. 1 5 MR. OSTR ACHA In that very first paragraph up there. !
6 George, I will be writing that, and I will see if I 7 could put a sentence in that. I am going to virtually copy -- l 8 when I get my transcript, I am going to copy what Bill said, 9 and Bill based his on what the Secretary said April 5. I 10 think a sentence or two like that belongs right at the
.11 beginning of the report, perhaps as a separate paragraph.
12 MR. SEGE: Yes, I agree that it would be good to 13 have that very prominently in the report. Perhaps we can
~
)
14 develop a good sentence or two on the subject by working 15 together, you and I and Bill, Mr. Chairman.
1 16 MR. OSTRACH2 Fine. I think that's helpful.
17 As to the work plans, section 4,. Prof. Milho111n 18 said that his general approach to that was that each person 19 should attempt to prepare a discussion of his own work plan and
, 20 forward .that directly to Gary Milho111n and that the individual 21 work plans need not be too detailed.
. 22 Now, what Gary has in mind, I think, was the section 23 4.2 on Information-gathering.
24 But let's discuss section 4 generally, because, 25 f ra n kl y, I am a little bit conf used about the best way to go
59
'0"~175.9
(_/ !
pv 1 about assigning this to the various study group. members.
_ 2 George, perhaps, since you wrote it, you could 3 describe what. you had in mind. j l
,- 4 MR. SEGE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can try. j 5 One of the purposes of this report is to explain to l
6 the Commission how we are going about discharging the duty that 7 has been assigned to us, and this is a place where we describe 8 what we are embarking on and.just how we are going to go about 9 doing it for the Commission's Information.
10 This is not primarily an issue-raising sort of
.11 section, but rather to advise the Commission with the 12 expectetlon that if they f. eel that what we are doing is not 13 going to produce the 'results sought by the assignment, they
(~)T u
14' could let us ht. the benefit of their guldance on the subject.
15 But to go down subsection by subsection to make it 16 more specific, we have 4.1, we have In the past discussions 17 arrived at task assignments and decisions on how the work is 18 going to be phased.
19 The.first phase, the detailed consideration of the
. 20 . scope, has fairly well run its course, so there may well be 21 some further, adjustments as.we go. But we have decided pre tty
. 22 well how.we are going to phase the work, how.we're going to go 23 about it, so we can describe that.
. 24 Information-gathering, that's the first --
25 MR. OSTRACH: Well, let's just stay with one for a
60 I
- Of"')05.10 L.
l pv 1 moment. JD11s would then be something similar to some of the
. 2 earl.ier sections, descriptions of what we have done so f ar on 3 all of the subjects which you'd be going through and
,. 4 specifically saying that we believe section 2.2(c) of the 5 Secretary's memorandum is now thusly or should be approached 6 thusly?
7 MR. SEGE: No, the scope should pretty well be taken 8 care of in section 3. The section 4 is more of the mechanics j 9 sort of description * "Well, we will continue to have meetings 10 monthl y. We will continue to have the meetings transcribed:
J1 , that we work on a system of task assignments, and how those 12 task assignments are going to work out," that sort of thing.
gggd#5 13 MR. OSTRACHs I s ee .
14 -
15 16 17 18 19
. 20 l 21
. 22 l 23
, . 24 25 O<>
61 CR3065 j MR. PARLER: It would seem to me that in addition tape 6 2 to the things that George has described, that it would be
- david 1 3 important here or elsewhere in this report for us to lay 4 out for the Commission a type of information -- the
.- types of'information that we believe are important for us l 5 ,
6 to use in our analytical work and our recommendation 7 I think, Mr. Chairman, that you have made the 8 point that I am trying to make that Gary had emphasized 9 earlier. Data first and then the analysis. I think that ,
10 I we should inform the Commission what information we believe i
11 to be the important information. We are getting information 12 regarding the stability of the licensing board decisions, 13 the extent to which they have been reversed.
i 14 John Frye gave us his report on that subject 15 this morning. We are also getting information on stay ;
1 16 requests and what happened to those stay requests administratively i
17 before the appeal board, before the Commission, and eventually,,
18 in some instances, before the courts.
. 19 Thatis the legal part or the procedural part of the 3 20 information that we are gathering. And then Paul and Miller l
21 are getting the other information relating to construction ;
22 costs and the progress of work to the appellate decision !
i 23 making process to the times that are involved. !
24 The procedural and legal information is available
/.jers Reporwrs, Inc. g ; J in our records. It's not easy to come by, but it is there to ;
25 l I'
r ,
l 62 I
id2 be researched. I guess to some extent the other category f I
2l t of information is also available in our records, but in i i
l some instances we might have to go to the applicants and l the licensees to get that.
' i
- 5 It seems to me that what I have just described 0'
is fundmental and very important, and it should be pointed 7
out as clearly as we can point out to the Commission what we l ;
8 are doing with regard to getting information.
9 MR. OSTRACH: Well, my understanding is that that ,'
i 10 ! -
would be done on an item by item basis in section 4.2 Is l 11 I that what you had in mind, George? '
12 MR. SEGE: Not only item by item, Mr. Chairman; h I think an overview is important, and the principles of -
j l#
selection and the categorization of the sort of information 15 that we are after generally will be very useful, and it should be in there. We should not lose sight of the forest for the trees.,
8 And I would not recommend dwelling a great deal 2
- 19 l on the item by item plans. A few special remarks about j l
0 each of the major items is all I would think appropriate for i
. 21 Commission information at this point. !
. l
' 2 :
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, I think we could '
23 very easily lose the Commissioners in this section, and we
[ .,s n. corners, i .
dmM he h, h @rge's ed, as an enM. M an l 25 ;I l detailed plans we come up with as individuals should be as -
1 i
l
63 I
('7Ad3 an appendix to the report because when I lay out what I'm
(/ .
2 '
going to do to go after the financial information, it can i l
3l get pretty tedious. '
1 l But a sentenceor two to say we are !
1
. i '
i d
going to go to utilities and ask for financial information I
)
5 1 relative to the important dates in the process and then j
- i 6 '
pass on to something else is all the commissioners really 7
need to know in this section. ,
)
8 MR. SEGE: I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. But l l
9 I would go further and argue against -- against . appending ; !
R 10 i detailed plans. j II MR. OSTRACH: How about this as a compromise, l I2 then. Professor Milhollin had asked that plans, whether 13 or not too detailed, be forwarded to him; how about if Id each of us prepares our work plan based on our previous 15 task assignments, in both a -- well, if you can, a short and 16 a long form.
I7 Yours would be appropriatefor that, Paul. I ,
18 don't know if the other topics can be broken down that way,
- I9 but they will all be sent to Gary. From the transcript 20 , Gary can understand that we have at least tentatively decided ,
. r
. 21 is that section 4.2 would be essentially a description of l 22 the basic approach on information gathering we're going to 23 use; !
highlights of specific information gathering techniques 24 D
A,jeral Reporters, Inc.
where that might be of interest to the commission.
25 '
Some of them certainly won't. One of the
64 i df-M4 I
-tasks I have is the~ history of the rule. 'The Commissioners O 2 aren't going to be interested if I tell'them I'm going to 3
be looking at these legislative reports and reports of the !
d l Mitchell' Committee and things like that. They might '
. \
5
. be interested in a statement that we will be looking at 6
appropriate legislative and other written sources, but that's 7
it.
8 And Professor Milhollin will be able to draw 9
from these specific task assignments and work plans that we ,
10 I give him that he views as the general approach that can H
be appropriately be put into this section 4.2. That is' I2 a section of the report that we can tentatively assign.to ,
13 Gary and which will be discussed by'the entire group in Id three weeks.
15 MR. COLLINS: Are there any plans to submit a '
16 revised task assignment sheet to everybody, or are we going I7 on what our understanding was, notes and remarks that we l 18 made on the original one?
MR. CHO: I agree with Paul. I don't think the 20 record is clear as to who has been assigned to do what. I ;
21 think there are certain areas that no decisions were made in; !
22 I think decisions were deferred. And you'll also recall that l
}
'l 23 l there were some things we thought were interrelated, and we !'
24 A didn't come to a decision on how those matters ought to be over.i m.oonen, inc.
25 handled and by whom. .'
_. . -- - .- - -- ~_ . - _ . - . . -. - _ .-
65 rid 5 1 And I.have another question: Professor Milhollin's 2 i suggestion that we each prepare a work plan sort of l 3l '
I indicates to me that each of us will be working independently !
, l 4l 8 on these various questions. But I thought we were assigned --
.,' 5 several people were generally assigned to these various 6 items. And it seems to me if we each come up with a plan, 7
it's a very inefficient way of proceeding. At the very least 8
we ought to be working with the other people who have been 9
assigned to the same item and come up with a sort of mutually .
10 agreed work plan.
8 II l MR. OSTRACH: I agree completely with you. I was '
12 quoting Professor Milhollin's words, but certainly for' 1 '
('T 13 items like the section on stays, which we have grouped together 14 and which a number of people volunteered to work on, I think 15 only one work plan should be submitted to Professor Milhollin.
i 16 On the subject of coming up with a revised version 17 of the assignments, would it be best to ask the chairman, l 18 Professor Milhollin, for his views on that?
I9 I think I know what I am assigned to do.
But I 20 think of more importance is what Gary thinks we are assigned l l
. 21 to do. '
22 MR. CHO: One area I had in mind was the subject j 23 {
of stays. I thought we agreed at our last meeting with
.; A(jersi r-) Reporters, Inc.
24 all the subitems under the stay section were related?
25 MR. OSTRACH: We did.
4 i
._ _. _ -_ . . _ . ~ . _ _ . _ . - _ . . . _ _ __ _ . _ _ ..__ _ _.__
l 66 ,
I MR. CHO: And because of that, it might be more D)id6 i
2 fruitful for one group to undertake that section as a whole a I
l 3l rather than breaking it down into sections and subjections !
and subgroups.
5 MR. OSTRACH: That's what I tried to just say a 6
moment ago, that certainly the' stay group should prepare a 7
report -- excuse me -- a statement of work or work plan -- l 8
MR. CHO: But I'm not sure who has been assigned to that stay group. '
MR. OSTRACH : I guess it might be useful then to )
l 11 i discuss what people's understanding has been. I look at the j 12
, tentative task assignment list that was prepared weeks ago, 13 and almost everyone in the group seems to be assigned to one Id !
or another arm of the subheadingsin question two: what 15 would be an appropriate composition for the working group on 16 stays? l 2 I7 MR. FRYE: As I recall, Mr. Chairman, I thought 18 we had come to the conclusion in the last meeting that the ,
stay question was basically a. legal question and that perhaps 20 the lawyers should concentrate on that area. -
'l l
MR. OSTRACE: Is that other people's understanding? I 22 MR. PARLER: That is my understanding, with the j 23 '
exception of the last item in paragraph 2D, which is what 24 all should economic and schedule considerations play in such 25 I standards. Certainly, on that point our colleagues from the ,
67 f^1vid7 L)
I other offices would have a veryimportant role to play. -l '
2 MR. OSTRACH: Well, then shall we form an ad hoc ,
~
! i 3
group on stays consisting of Mr. Parler, Mr. Cho, Mr. Frye, I 4
myself, and Mr. Collins? Or --
.- 5 {
MR. COLLINS: Miller, were you doing any work on i 6
6 that D,-page 47 7
MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman, for group I move that 8
John Cho take the lead for the group to try to coordinate 9 '
our activities.
l 10 MR. OSTRACH: Mr. Cho?
l II MR. CHO: I am agreeable, Mr. Chairman.
12 MR. PARLER: Well, somebody should take the lead I3 to coordinate the activities. Of course you are -- maybe j
(
Id John and I will be colead.- s. l I
15 MR. CHO: Yes, let's put it that way. l i i 16 MR. OSTRACH: Mr. Cho and Mr. Parler. Mr. Parler I7 has already been tasked with working as one of the coleaders !
i 18 on the entire section three of the interim report, and I
- I9 don't think anyone wants to over-burden him.
20 All right, then, the work plan for stays will be f i i
'. 21 drawn up as a working group; Mr. Cho is the leader on that, I 22 l
and perhaps you could circulate to us just tentatively what l
- 23 l l your ideas are on that work plan, since this is a step behind .
I 24 i Agerst Reporters,Inc. all of the other tasks, if we are to get that to Gary in the 25 time frame that the other work plans are going. And we will '
I l
l
68 I I
vid8 have to move particularly quickly on it. Remember, 2
i Professor Milhollin indicated that he did not believe that i
~
3 work plans had to be particularly detailed. These are not
~
4 final, refined matters. And your general thoughts, I am sure, 5
will be more than satisfactory to Gary.
l 6
DR. SPANGLER: Before we leave this subject of l
7 appendices, I want to say that I endorse very much the f
I B
suggestion that Paul made about the need for them. The thing l 9
that I think is important -- and George has that very well l 10 I done in most of his outlines where he wants to protect the II Commission from too much verbiage -- and that's honorable. I 12 On the other hand, observing,how Commissioners 13 react to something that is highly condensed, each Comm3.ssioner .
I4 seems to have his own areas where he wants to know more, 15 wnats to scratch deeper. It seems to me the function of 16 an appendix is just to permit that kind of in-depth investigation I7 as a kind of a courtesy to the Commissioners who want to know I8 more than the generalities and platitudes that oftentimes I9 results from enodensing something into too few words.
20 -
And if the appendices have more detailed things 21 and if they are properly -- if a table of contents is ! !
I 22 appended to something that has more than four or five pages of 23 length,so that further permits careteria-style brousing of '
24 ASeral Reporters, Inc. g Commissioners, this is a very useful way to let them get a 25 better understanding of what is behind summary type statements
69
-I rid 9 that should be in the main body.
2 MR. OSTRACH: I think we can leave the decision j
$I !
- l as to whether or not to include appendices to our next l meeting when we will be working with the report itself.
l 0
Right now I think we should just prepare the l l
work plans for Professor Milhollin.
7 All right, then, are there other tasks that people 8
are not confident as to where the assignment is? I recognize that that's a difficult question to answer. l 1
10 I MR. SEGE:' There are some cross cutting tasks, l 1
' Mr. Chairman, notably, the general task of inventory of !
12 pertinent cases that we have talked about. I am not quite I3 clear whether any responsibility has been assigned for that, 1
Id and if so, who? !
15 MR. OSTRACH: The subject has been raised earlier 16 today, and maybe we should decide that on specific cases I7 to be studied further.
18 MR. PARLER: I think that would be something very important that should be reflected either in the work plans 20 or somewhere in this report. I guess that point has already .
. l
. 21 !
been made earlier in this discussion. ,
22 l 66 ,
i 23 !
-- 24 ;
A ,Zeral Reportm, Inc, .
25 , ;
i 1 l
l' ,
i 70 i
7-qR3065 1 MR. OSTRACH: Well, then, let's discuss it. We
. N)tape I
7 2 i have Mr. Collins second paper, one dated March 1st, which david l' 3, lists a number of construction permit cases.
4 !
MR. COLLINS: If I tell you what I have done on j l i
l . ,'
l 5 .
this paper here -- first of all, I went through -- I asked !
6 the MPA people to give me a runoff of all the construction i
7 permits, an IBM runoff, with all the pertinent dates that 8 appeared in our blue book. I'm not sure everybody is familiar ,
9 with that. And then I went through that and selected out l 5
i 10 ! the following dates. You can take a look at the Beaver i i 1 j II l
Valley one to see the dates that I thought would be pertinent '
12 for our study. 1 -
('T i l () 13 And then I tried to resurrect for several cases i
j j i
14 a narrative from microfiche over at MPA, and I have just a '
15 handful of those narratives of the study.
1 16 t In attachment A to my memorandum, I give just a 17 one lin- explanation of why I thought these cases might be of 1
18 interest *:o us and the other cases do appear on microfiche
. 19 1 and seem to have gotten relatively easy for narrative, if 20 people are interested in them. The older the case, the less 21 the narrative you're going to get because our reporting became :
I r
22 more and more refined as we processed these cases through. ;
i 23 For those that are not familiar with our blue book, 24
,A let me pass a page.
m4 Reorwrs, inc.
25 (Hands document to committee.)
i !
, 1 a
1 n
i id2 I !
71 2 This is the type of information tha:t i to us, s available 3 ld ;
DR. SPANGLER:
d (' I would urge while people are >
considering these things to consider that
~
~
5 there may be a l 6
i
' broader list of criteria for selectin g cases the might be suggested by this attachment A. f 7
For example, in the Harris I I case it says there is a two year delay in l 8
processing CP l 9
application due to the need for power l This is very frequent these days to have as a cause . .
10 !
i7ournal several weeks ago an I saw in the Wall Street ;
'k amouncement that the state of I2 South Carolina was canceling its ord er for a nuclear paint, and it gave this as a reason.
I3 (
q Id And the percentage reduction in annual rate of 15 growth was rather miniscule, and I calculat e d
what that 16 really would mean in terms of delay and it short. was very, very C
It's obvious to me that utilities citing are I7 h for Official purposes one cause I8 , and there are many causes that 19 11 h' enter into their decision.
3 t
20 I am not saying this is not one of th e causes 21 that might be involved with Harris
, but financial reasons -
22 and many other aspects, regulatory, antici l l delays or difficulties. You know, patory regulatory '
23 the political climate, !
\ 24 1
d regulatory climate and confusion is as such to be that ene h f.ru swom,.. ine. I I rather careful in interpreting the causes f l or any delay.
I So I guess that's the point I want ed to illustrate.
.- . .. - _ - - - - - _ . . - . . . . . . - . - - - . - - - - - - . - - ~ -
t i
71 id2 I This is the type of information that:is available 2
to us.
1 31 l DR. SPANGLER: I would urge while people are 4
considering these things to consider that there may be a 5
broader.]ist of criteria for selecting cases tha might be !
I 6
suggested by this attachment A. For example, in the Harris 7 t case it says there is a two year delay in processing cc 8
application due to the need for power. This is very frequent these days to have as a cause. I saw in the Wall Street l i
Journal several weeks ago an announcement that the state of i South Carolina was canceling its order for a nuc1 car paint, 1
12 and it gave this as a reason. I 13 And the percentage reduction in annual rate of Id growth was rather miniscule, and I calculated what that !
15 really would mean in terms of delay and it was very, very :
16 short. It's obvious to me that utilities'are citing for I
17 official purposes one cause, and there are many causes that ,'
N enter into their decision. ,
I am not saying this is not one of the causes i
20 that might be involved with Harris, but financial reasons ;
l 21 and many other aspects, regulatory, anticipatory regulatory l
22 l delays or difficulties. You know, the political climate, f l
23 !
j regulatory climate and confusion is such that one has to be i
,g, rather careful in interpreting the causes for any delay.
So I guess that's the point I wanted to illustrate. ;
1
.. .- ~ '
1
? l' l
72 I
id3 MR. COLLINS: Well, please don't take this one l 2 statement as a synopsis of the whole case. Go back eud look '
~
3
.l at the narrative on slippage analysis on Harris and then the d
little narrative on it. I think you will find some of the
. 5 things Miller is talking about.
0 MR. OSTRACH: Do I understand these listings run 7
only up through prospective CP decision?
1 8
MR. COLLINS : Right. These are completed dates.Where 9
you see CP prospective decision date, that is the date that r
10 l the CP license was issued. Right,after that we on the staff .
11 I are no longer concerned about maintaining the schedule. We 1 12 are through with our work essentially..
[ ;
O
~
13 i The board has signed off and we issue the CP and Id we can go on to other things, and the case actually comes out 15 of the blue book.
6 MR. PARLER: Of course it's beyond that point that '
17-we need information that is of great interest to this committee.
' - 18 Ard some of .ese cases might serve that purpose. I believe,
- " for example, that the Midland case would be a useful case for 20 us to examine. I think the St. Lucie case -- 1
- 2I MR. COLLINS: I have a Midland two year hearing; 22 St. Lucie with the court order that suspended operations.
I 3
l . MR. OSTRACH: See, the reason I notice that was i l
A 1eret Reoorters, Inc. # #
i 25 a particular bland linear progression; it looks like one of i
l
T:
1 73 1
I
- (~(id4 the nicer ones. I notice you didn't even pick it up for V
, I 2 I -
- inclusion. ! I f !
'3' '
l ; MR. COLLINS: Well, after spending about six hours !
d
! on the microfiche hunting these things up, you know, I -
l
. I .i 5
finally decided that I would defer getting any more l l t 1
- 6 narratives until I found out what the pleasure of this
]
7 committee was as to what specific cases we wanted to really 8
look at in detail.
9 MR.-PARLER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it's ,
i 10 ?
appropriate now to try to reach agreement on those cases l U
which would receive particular attention? Certainly, we i i
12 can agree that Seabrook is such a case. Is that right?
13 MR. OSTRACH: I think that's right. That's right.
Id MR. COLLINS: I_ would like.to point out that whatever 15 cases we select is based on the last couple of weeks of worP'.g-I' on this in-house information readily available -- it's just I7 not readily available. i
- l 18 DR. SPANGLER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest, j I' '
since the memorandum that I submitted on February 15 also l 20 deals with the scoping of some case studies, that we defer , ;
' I 21 further discussion about the selection of cases until we !
- 22 l l have had a chance to examine the scope of this -- which are l 1
23 suggested in this memo and come back to the subject, if that's !
all right with you, Paul.
A $ A000rms. Inc. i l
2I MR. PARLER: How much time do you think we are ;
I 74 i
I going to have before we come to grips with this issue?
tvid5 2 '
It seems to me that it is important for the
~
i interim report to identify for the Commission those proceedings l d 1 that we think are of greater importance for the purpose of '
l
- 5 the studies that the Connission asked this committee to
- 6 undertake.
7 I DR. SPANGLER: I think we should do that today, 8
Bill. It's'just that I think in terms of ,- since Paul's l 9
memo and my memo both dealt with case studies -- perhaps 10 !
different elements of case studies, I think -- and there '
Il may be some reason for conducting them jointly, rather than .
12 Paul having a list of case studies that's different from the I3 list of case studies that one might do to support the sort Id og study that I have recommended.
15 It might be useful to join forces in case studies, 16 rather than have several. But I don't have any hard feelings I7 about that right at the moment. I think this is something
. 18 the group should consider, whether these are two independent efforts or they should be coalesced and serve the objectives 20 that Paul has in his scope and the objectives that I have -
21 outlined in the scope of my memo of February 15th. !
. 22 MR. OSTRACH: Can you briefly, to refresh our )
23 memories, set forth what you outlined your scope was? We all 24 n have your memo, so if you can just get the basic principles.
xyers neconen, anc.
25 DR. SPANGLEh: Let me get down to the type of en
-m. ~ ~ - - - .
l 4
l 75 j .
3 I
[ id6 information needed, because that is the most practical, and I 2 1 I think the most meaningful part of it. And since it's 3 {
short, I will just read them, because they are very succinct. ;
j 4
I could have elaborated on each of these items.
. 5 MR. OSTRACH: That's fine. t 6 I DR. SPANGLER: But I wrote them with succinctness 7
in mind. I feel the following information should be
- 8 developed -- and I suggested perhaps only four cases would be desirable -- structured along the following lines of '
10 I inquiry. :
Number one, what were the actual milestone dates 12 for the need decision, the fuel choice dec.1sion, the 13 alternative site decision, and tinplant design decisions ,
Id t
. involving major plant features and the contract agreements for I 15 the purchase of major plant subsystems, et cetera. ,
6 Number two: what events caused these decision :
I7 dates to vary appreciably, if this is the case, from those ,
18 that would have normally been preferred in the planning practice of a given utility. And how much timing displacement 20 i resulted from such causes.
l 21 Three: what dollar costs were actually expended I i
.o2 or committed in accordance with the decision milestones l 23 l identified in item one and what was the actual flow of ;
24 A(~1 q eral Reporters, Inc. expenditures over time to the point of completed .
! 25 construction? Or at least the construction as it now stands ,
76 I
l, id7 in-time.
2 In many of these cases it may not have been ! !
I 3 !
! i completed as yet.
s Four: what parallel cost expenditures as
- \
5 described in item three would be estimated for a more normal l l . 6 pattern of development as hypothecated in item two?
7 Five: how would the cost expenditure pattern t ;
8 in items three and four have differed if the LWA or CP I I
)
9 had been issued six months later than was actually the case, j
, Ditto for 12 months later. l 11 ' i Six: What would be the additional capital costs 12 l 1 if the plant construction was shifted to another site at i ip !
13 the time the LWA or CP was granted, whichever came first. !
ld What would be the least cost of makeup energy, assuming the 15 shift to another site added: A, two years delay to plant i
1 16 I construction; and B, four years delay? )
I Now, to item six I have an additional footnote. l 18 I say for questions six and seven specify what additional l 19 l assumptions are required to estimate such costs reasonably, 20 utilities that may have something additional to assume, and )
. 21 we ought to recognize that maybe the case.
Item number seven, to which the same asterisk '
l 23 l
l applies: what would be the answers to six-A and six-B if the )
24 Aherei n.coriers, inc. hMeMMhM men du W he mah ahu &
25 I months of LWA construction and also after 12 months of j l
I 1
. _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . , _ _ . _ _ . _ . - _ . . , . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ ._.-._m__ I
77
( d8 I construction, following issuance of a CP or an LWA followed 2 ;
by CP within that time interval.
a !,
3 Eight, and last: if the immediate effectiveness l
.' I 4
rule were repealed, how would the increased uncertainty !
- 5 compare with other uncertainties affecting base load facility l.
. 6 planning, assuming, A, the time limits for administrative 7
adjudication were fixed at some such period as six months 8
after the stay order was decided upon; and B, an open ended 9
period for adjudication of issues was part of the new '
1 10 I licensing procedures?
II How would the increased cost and uncertainties I 1 12 affect such planning decisions as the choice of fuels for !
I3 adding new base load facilities and the choice of sites?
i I# !
What other adjustments in normal planning 5
decisions and methodologies would be contemplated?
16 i
And that is the end of the task.
7 MR. OSTRACH: Miller, those strike me as very 18 useful information to be gotten from each of our selected i cases. I don't know how useful those criteria are for 20 deciding which casas to study, which is a question that I
. i
- 23 I think thatwe have to decide right now. !
- 22 I certainly agree that we are going to have to 23 '
use either those or other inquiries to structure our analysis 24 Aheral Reconers, Inc. of the specific cases that we select, and I think therefore 25 '
the best thing for us to do right now is to try to hammer out I
i t
l .
)
78 rid 9 I a tentative list, tentative because Professor Milhollin, 2 .
our chairman, won't have seen it, and even more importantly '
i t
3 because the Commission will pass upon it. i 4
But I think we should now try and come up with
'. 5 a tentative list of four to six -- six to eight, some 6'
number like that, cases that we believe deserve the more 7
intensive study that is contemplated by your February 15 !
8 memorandum.
9 And I think as you indicated earlier, there are !
10 I sort of two differer.t approaches to this: there's the II approach suggested by Paul; in other words, looking at 12 cases on the basis of staff schedules and information up to o
V t 13 the CP. That gives us some types of cases that we might li Id t want to study.
15 And then there is the mode of analysis that 16 looks at what happened after the CP that calls up images 17 '
of Seabrook or cases like that. I think we want to get 18 cases that are selected on both of those criteria, both of
- "I those bases; and then also to maintain perspective, some 20 cases that would be perceived as good examples, things where 21 the process, such as it is, functions smoothly, because !
l - 22 we do need to keep those in perspective; even if there won't l
\ <
! 23 t
be much intensive study, nonetheless, it might be important -
24 to know how a grouping would have been affected, perhaps, erJ' Reporters, Inc. g 25 adversely by some of the changes that could be proposed in the 2
79 I
( t id10 immediate effectiveness rules.
V. l l 2
DR. SPANGLER: I quite agree that that is a good !
9
- l
- perspective on how to proceed. There are several nuances '
- - d I, J I would like to cite, however: one is that I don't think l '
- 5 it probably will be too difficult for the group to decide
.. 6 on the problematic cases we'should address. l 7
MR. PARLER: What do you mean by that?
I 8
- DR. SPANGLER: Well, I don't think there are all 9
that many cases that reall give rise to a high level concern l 10 ?
about changing the immediate. effectiveness stay rule. ;
MR. PARLER: But we don't know th Cyet. That's why ;
i 12 we're going to have to examine these cases. Some people l 13 certainly perceive some of these cases as being examples of Id where that rule has not worked and has contributed 15 significantly to the problem. You might be right, but that's t
16 one of the major purposes of the examinations.
I7 DR. SPANGLER: Well, I have just heard Seabrook ,
18 mentioned so many times and St. Lucie as examples. And I ,
- I' think your point is well taken, Bill. I'm not resisting it.
20 The other point that I would like to raise is that we are really'
.- 21 not sure-to what extent utilities are going.to agree to
. 22 cooperate in these kinds of. studies. So I think when we have !
l 23 l [ -a list that we might start with something a little bit longer, i
24 v:.r.i n.oomri, inc. i both in the problematic und non-problematic A and B portions i
- A(3 25
- of the list a little bit longer than we might want to pursue
4 80 idll just to get the group feelings about this.
A third point I would like to raise is that for 11
- the non-problematic list, it might be helpful for us to ;
consider cases that are fairly advanced in construction so
- 3 that that portion of the data, you know, has a little bit l
, 6 stronger historical compoenent to it than one that is, 7
you know, maybe only a month or two into the CP and of it. I 8
Another thing that I think might be use'ful in the 9
way of decision criteria about cases is to have some kind of ,
, 10 i regional diversity or a particuarly -- particularly for the '
11 i non-problematic group of studies, those utilities who have '
f j 12 had a rather strong background in nuclear because I don't I3 '
, think we should get too much involved with learning curve i '
j experiences of utilities with their first nuclear plant.
15
, Obv%usly,-I think we are learning as regulatory
- 36 bodies how to deal effectively with licensing, and so are the I7 utilities. So that's another suggestion that I have in
.- 18 purviewing or deciding upon the B list of cases.
" Well, I guess that's all of the nuances I want 20 to add at this time.
2I MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman, for openers, I suggest
. 22 atleastforpurposesofdiscussion,threecasesforintensivej 23 study: the Seabrook case, the St. Lucie II case, and the 24 A efd Re00M94, Inc.
25 or 7 u .
. . . . . . - . - _ _ - . . . -. . ._ - -. -_- -- - . . ~ - . . _ -
CR 3065 81 l MELTZER:
jwb MR. OSTRACH: Are there any sentiments for looking i
1 l
- 8 O' 2 . at the Perkins case We heard today representatives of the ,
l j
I l
3 public indicating that as a horrible they were very concerned about'1 j,- 4 MR. COLLINS: Apparently Perkins is still in the l l
.. 5 licensing process.
l l
6 MR. FRYE: Perkins is.
l i
7 MR. OSTRACH: So should we stay away from it?
8 I apparently have misspoken. Perkins meets with
- 9 unanimity in opposition. I drop it. ;
I i
10 1 MR. COLLINS: I would like to request that you go l
l 11 down this list of mine, Attachment A, and see if these are I
I 12 the types of things we are looking for. l l
() 13 These are exceptions -- in all the process case, 14 that had there not been the immediate effectiveness rule, a
15 perhaps there would have been a tremendous cost to the utility ,
1 ; i 16 which is one of the things we are looking at. ! l
, 8 17 I am thinking of McGuire, for example, there is a j i , 18 two-year difference -- about 18 months -- difference between i
19 they started to dig the hole and when we finally issued a CP. i l l l 20 The same way with Perry. l 21 I think Perry is an interesting case., in that a yearl i I 22 after we issued -- about a year after we issued the LWA-1, we l 23 issued a'show cause order and stopped construction.
24 MR. PARLER: Why was that? Do you know? l
'A ers Recorwes. inc.
25 MR. COLLINS: No, I'm sorry. I don't have the l
8 l
l
l 8-2 jwb 82 1 details.
(}
2 MR. PARLER: I certainly think that would be an l~ 3 interesting one to examine. ,
l j.-
4 MR. COLLINS: St. Lucie, of course, is a court 5 order. There's a clear case of work going along, and everybody i
, 6 is satisfied except the court, and I don't know whether construc-l 7 tion was stopped -- yes, it was. Construction was stopped for 8 St. Lucie.
9 DR. SPANGLER: Let me say that Mr. Lovelace has i
10 I suggested to me Wppss 3 and 5, by happenstance, a fellow by l l
11 the name of Mr. -- let me get his name properly here --
12 Renberger, R-e-n-b-e-r-g-e-r, who is Assistant Director for O is T ch=otoer *wesss,. a a co e ce a dout ru1 - x1=e 14 issues.
15 And Mr. Lovelace, having suggested that perhaps 16 that might be a good case study, I took the liberty of just
{
17 suggesting that we were in the throes of considering whether
- l. 18 we wanted to conduct such case studies, but wou).d he be I
l 19 interested? And I gave him a thumbnail sketch of what we i i
20 were up to, and he said, "yes," he thought they would be
)
j.. .
21 interested.
. 22 So that meets the criteria of regional diversity, 23 and it also meets the criterion of, you know, a utility which 24 has rather a varied preponderance of experience in nuclear !
lA ord Reconm, Inc.
25 plant construction.
l l
._.__.___._________..m . ~ _ . .
8-3 jwb 83
- MR. OSTRACH
- Bill, why did you suggest WPpSS' 3 and O 2 s.*
- 3 MR. LOVELACE: It started out with a LWA-1, and a they started cutting the hills and filling the valleys, and 5 the State of Washington got involved because of the runoffs,
. 6 we're putting mud in the creek, and they made them go back 7 and stop excavation, build a sedimentation pond, just problems and bull 8 at the beginning. )
9 DR. SPANGLER: Let me say, it's normal for most i
10 i plants to have unanticipated problems. 'rhat's more normal 11 than not to have them.
12 And I think when, in the design of this case study 13 that I read to you, the eight tasks I allowed for that as part 14 of the explanation that would come from the utility about 1 i
15 what hypothetically would they have expected, rather than what 16 the historical experience is. i l
17 Because unanticipated problems throw you off track I
. 18 from your normal planning expectations, and we are trying to i 19 say: Well, how much does regulatory difficulty throw you l i
l 20 off vis-a-vis other things that throw utilities off from their !
i
!, 21 normal --
. 22 MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman, I am not certain we are l' 23 all thinking along the same lines here as to what really we i
24 are searching for.
A el Reporters, Inc.
i 25 At one time, it is fairly clear that we are looking i
. _ _ . _ m.-. _ __- _ .- - . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . -_ _ . . _ _ . - . _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _
I I
! 8-4 jwb 84 for the impacts of the immediate effectiveness rule, and l j j 2 other times it seems that what we think it is important to l- .3 l search for are all of the causes of a utility's delay at any l.- 4 point in the planning process.
.- 5 In order to make progress, I think that we should I
. 6 clarify our understanding as to what really primarily we are l 7 seeking.
8 MR. OSTRACH: My understanding is similar to 9 yours, Bill, i
10 I think our primary focus should be on cases where 11 disruption in construction, or stops in construction, have 12 grown out of the direct adjudicatory process. The Appeal Board
() 13 reversed; the Commission reversed; the Court of Appeals 14 reversed. Cases where NRR entered an order during construc-1 l
15 tion or during LWA work, I don't see how the immediate l i
16 effectiveness rule particularly is affected. l l Presumably, whenever they started construction, if 17 f
I l
. 18 it was something NRR didn't like about construction, they !
i 19 would have entered the same order. I don't see how that l 1
20 necessarily shines any light on the operations over the
. 21 immediate e:Jectiveness rule.
,. 22 MR. COLLINS: I thought a part of our study was i.
23 going to involve new facts. l 24 MR. PARLER: Paragraph 4 of the study. j
{ Wlhkwei mannwi, ine.
! 25 Im. COLLINS: Yes. In this Perry case where NRR l
r
- - . - __ - - - - . . , _ . , - - .,~
8-5 jwb 85 1 issued a show-cause, daere was a new fact. They decided to O
\"l 2 dewater the site. And this threw many of the site calculations 3 just out the window. They said, "Stop this. Stop all 4 construction until we can analyze it."
l.* ,
5 MR. OSTRACH: So that's a paragraph 4 case.
, . 6 MR. COLLINS: Yes.
7 DR. SPANGLER: Yes. The idea of this List A and l 8 List B, I want to go back to that. Because if the group 9 doesn't feel we're on track with that philosophy, we ought to get it on the table. l 10 i 11 But the idea was that we would have a List A that 12 Bill had suggested three candidates for; and then a List B
() c Ir. where, you know, maybe stay orders, or the kinds of things -
14 that happened at Seabrook and St. Lucie did not happen 15 particularly, but, you know, these are baseline studies.
16 I perhaps unnecessarily complicated the thing by a 17 description that it's normal in one sense to have perturbations
. 18 of various kinds in practically every plant.
l 19 MR. OSTRACH: I see. So the reason you raised 20 WPPSS 3 and 5 wasn't because of these conflicts of the state;
. 21 it's just because it was applying to the Northwest which --
.. 22 where the utility has shown an interest in cooperating.
i 23 DR. SPANGLER: Yes.
i 24 And Bill had a suggestion of interesting problems ,
ldlhweinnomn.w.
s 25 that I think are worthy of study as one case.
l l
I -
8-6 jwb 86 j MR. SEGE: Mr. Chairman, I share some of the O
U 2 concern that Bill 'just expressed that we are talking about 3 various complexly interrelated things, but not really one-at-I l
4 a-time, and my simple mind is overwhelmed by this complexity. l.
.- , 5 With your indulgence, I would like to spend a
. 6 couple of minutes trying to sort out my own thoughts in the 7
hope that perhaps it will help others, also.
8 First, causes of delay are not within the cope of 9
this study at all. Only causes of adjudicatory proceedings
' l 10 i taking place during construction. So that the causes of ;
l jj delay that were urged on us for consideration by Mr. Phillips j l
12 have no place in the work of this study.
13 In terms of finding cases for study, a case inven-j4 tory for the purpose of case history -- case history inventory l l I
15 for the purpose of building background, we have been talking, j 16 I think, about three different things. l j7 One thing is what Miller has been concentrating on, l
. 18 which is defined as cases in which a utility's decision 19 processes can be studied for the purpose of our being able
\
20 to tell what the effect of detention would be, or various 21 m difications of the immediate effectiveness rule might do
. 22 to utilities in the sense of facilitiating or making more 23 difficult their planning processes, whether rational or not.
24 And that is, in my mind, quite separate from another6 A eral Recorters, Inc.
25 case inventory we were talking ab..t. And that is, to sec i
l 1
8-7 jwb 87 l
l l
! 1 just what has happened in past cases in terms of adjudicatory O 2 proceedings during construction where something was being built i
3 on a site while somebody was considering whether that plant 4 should be built at that particular location or built quite
., 5 differently.
. 6 In this second category, we have been' talking about 7 selecting a very small number of cases for intensive study.
- 1 8 And the three cases that Bill suggested seemed to me to be l 9 suitable for selection for such intensive study. i
! I 10 There may be one or two others. Certainly, if the !
l l l 11 list became too long, it would become unmanageable.
12 In addition to that, I had recommended -- and some 13 others had brought up similar thoughts -- that there should be
! s 14 a more comprehensive inventory of cases in which adjudication 15 has taken place during construction.
16 And for that, we have not made any decisions, yet.
l l I
17 But a quick reading of John Frye's memo of March 1, it seems j 1
l- 18 to me that that would become a good skeleton for such a list l l, I 19 because John has listed the cases in which the Appeal Board l
l 20 caused something to be done on a case that came before it.
. 21 And I think it would be useful to have an inventory
. 22 of such cases -- not necessarily studied with the same
, 23 intensity as the few selected for intensive study, but still 24 the highlights of the cases documented more or less systema-
! ha menom,i, sne. i
, 25 tically.
! l
, . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . , , , __._.,..m., _ _ . - _ . . , ,
8-8 jwb 88 j I would in this case, hbwever, supplement what John
! O 2 did by something similar where the Commission inserted itself 3 and called for some action to be taken which John explicitly
.- 4 left out in the scope of his studies.
... 5 There may be a few more to add --
4 MR. OSTRACH: Excuse me, George. uo you mean the 7
Commist .n'in its role as reviewer of the Appeal Board? You 8
don't mean staff?
9 MR. SEGE: That is correct. I mean the Commissioners l'
10 I themselves in their capacity as the highest tribunal -- l l
11 adjudicatory tribunal of the Agency.
12 And also, another set of cases that I believe needs 13 to be added is where actions . subsequent to start of construc-ja tion were required by a body lower than the Appeal Board.
15 I think that the germs of some such cases are in 16 Paul Collins' memo, where there may have been an LWA where j7 work had to be stopped, and that requirement was imposed by a
- body lower than the Appeal Board. l 18 ;
j9 MR. OSTRACH: Lower than the Appeal Board means? '
20 MR. SEGE: I guess, either Staff or Licensing Board.'
. 21 MR. OSTRACH: But not bodies outside the Commission?
l
. 22 MR. SEGE: Well, I think -- I am not sure. I think 23 .maybe some lawyer member of this group may wish to comment on 24 that. I don't think it would hurt to have court -- well, I l
! Ahet neponen, Inc. !
L 25 guess I would say that -- well, courts. caused some further I
I i
_ _ _ . _ . ~ . _ . . _ _ _ = _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - . . _ . _ . _ _ . . .
8-9.jwb
- 89 i
l 1 action to be taken during construction. That should also be L (~\
\-
2 added to the inventory.
l i
3 So generally, there should be an inventory of at i
. 4 least those cases in which construction was already in progress l
l l, 5 on the basis of an immediately effective Licensing Board l ,
l l, 6 decision where, as a result of action of any reviewing body 7 at any level, something was caused to happen, construction to 8 cease, remand for further consideration, construction to be 9 suspended.
i 10 I would think that at least the inventory should -
11 include at least all such cases within spme period that we 12 decide, and I would certainly not pick any quarrel with the
) 13 1972-1978 period that John picked.
14 MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman, I think George's remarks 15 have added to the clarification of some of the things that ;
i 16 were less clear before his remarks, but there is one point '
17 that is still not entirely clear to me. l i
. 18 That is, what George means by " inventory of cases"? '!
19 Now as I understand the assignments in the areas, I certainly i 20 think we are going to identify - "we" being myself, John Cho, !
., 21 John Frye, and perhaps yourself, for the Commission's cases --
, 22 those administrative proceedings or licensing proceedings in l
[ 23 which ' there were reversals of the Licensing Board, et cetera.
24 In other words, the complete inventory.
iA el Recomn, Inc.
25 So I think that the people that have been assigned l l l
l
8-10 jwb 90 ,
l 1 that responsibility understand that, so we are going to have O 2 a complete listing along the lines of the listing that John
!- has prepared. I 3
l.' 4 But what is not clear to me is which of these cases ,
l., 3 are we going to select for fur'ther analysis, the kind of analy-
,. 6 sis that in large part Miller and Paul will try to provide 7 the necessary information on.
~
8 And a little separate part of the further study 9 are those cases that should receive particularly intensive i
10 consideration -- for example, take the Seabrook case. I would i 1
.l 11 think that it would be very important for us to analyze very 12 carefully the various motions for stays that were made, how
() 13 they were ultimately resolved, and try to relate what was 14 happening in the construction arena while those stay battles 15 and other administrative and judicial appeal matters were ,
16 being resolved. l l
17 That latter consideration is what I have in mind 18 by " intensive review of these proceedings." I would not think ,
, 19 that it would be worthwhile, or that we have the resources to 20 make such an intensive review of all of these cases.
. 21 On the other hand, I believe that a somewhat less
. 22 intensive review would be helpful for 6 to 10 other cases.
23 DR. SPANGLER: That is an interesting thought, to
- t l
- 24 have a dichotomy where you take a larger number of cases, but l
[ A1, puol R morwis Inc. I 25 don't put as much analytical or fact finding informa'. ten, to i
i l l
8-11 jwb 91 ,
)
l g 1 concentrate on key legal aspects, and then a more indepth -
V 2 study of the kind that I have outlined for just a very few l
cases.
3 4 MR. OSTRACH: You are suggesting, then, three
, 5 separate categories of. cases of decreasing number, an inven-
. 6 tory based on an expanded version of John's paper that he {
7 submitted yesterday, the March 1st paper which lists all cases I 8 in which, subsequent to a Licensing Board decision, the 9 Appeal Board, the Commission, or a court has taken action I '
10 which requires further proceedings; a smaller group of 6 to 11 10 cases where we believe further analysis is appropriate to 1
)
highlight things, but not in detail; an'd then a key group of
~
12 1
0' is 4 to e cases -- Seabroek ane les frienes -- thae we w111 1
14 ant. lyze in as great depth as we can, with specific question- I 15 naires to the applicant with milestone breakdown? i l
16 MR. PARLER: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
l ,
1 17 And let me make one other point clear. With regard !
I I
- 18 to the first category, the inventory category, we are going .
2 19 to have to come up with that category in any event to supply l 20 the background information for certain of the questions that ;
. 21 have been asked in paragraph 1 of the Secretary's memorandum l l
l . 22 of April 5; and, to some considerable measure, to provide the
~
23 information that is necessary to use as a point of departure l.
. I 24 for dealing with the questions in paragraph 2 of that memorandum hs Reporters, inc. ,
25 that have been asked about stays. j i
e f
8-12 jwb 92 j But we have to have the inventory.
O d
2 MR. OSTRACH: vuite so.
3 ,
MR. FRYE: May I inquire a little bit further as 4 to precisely -- well, perhaps I should start by saying what' 5 I tried to do in the inventory I prepared.
. 6 I tried to identify all those cases in which some 7 action or inaction or ruling or lack of a ruling on the part 8 of a Licensing Board led the Appeal Board to order some 9 further proceedings. And I think I picked them all up.
l 10 I did not pick up cases where some subsequent !
l 11 event after the Licensing Board's decision had come out led to 12 further proceedings.
13 1 did not, as I indicated, pick up rulings or 14 appeals from rulings on petitions to intervene, or referred 15 rulings, or recertified questions. ;
16 Nor did I pick up motions made to the Appeal Board 17 for stays of decisions, except where, in my review of a case,
. 18 the Appeal Board -- in a case which I picked up, the Appeal i
19 Board had taken some action along those lines. j 20 And I take it, Bill, then, that you are talking !
l
,and #8 21 about expanding that to include all others, as well?
i bag #9 22 MR. PARLER: I think we need a complete inventory 23 of all reversals of decisions which have provided a basis for l !
24 the licensing action which authorizes construction. '
- A eral Rooonm, Inc.
25 It is not entirely clear to me in my mind right now I
i l
l 8-13 jwb 93 l
l 1 how much of an expansion would be needed to your list other
! /7 l%)
1 2 than what I believe George has already suggested -- to put H 3 the Commission's reversals, or consideration of these cases --
I
~
4 to bring that into the picture.
. , 3 Certainly the stays, even though you haven't
. 6 examined them, they have to be examined in connection with the 7 task that we have.
g 5 those cases will be in the inventory. I have, 9 in a folder a approximately 50 cases in which stay requests; 10 of some kind or other were sought.
11 What I have not finished researching is 1.ow many of 12 those stay requests dealt with stays of initial decit ior.s which
()
13 authorized some kind of licensing action.
14 I guess I have some difficulty now saying with 1
15 confidence how these needed to be expanded. Iwouldwaituntill 16 we saw your list, and then,the list is compared in connection 17 with the stays.
l 18 MR. FRYE: I think what we will find is that what l l
. 19 has not been included in my list are those cases where there j i
20 were affirmances, and cases where the Appeal Board rendered j l
. 21 decisions that I generally categorized in a category I labeled i l
" modified and affirmed," where they may have said you reach I 22
~
l 23 l the right result, but we don't necessarily agree with your l
24 reasons.
A eral Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. PARLER: Well, I think that those cases maybe t
i, e i
8-14 jwb 94 i
i need not be reflected in the inventory, but I think that we 2 certainly need to know generally what percentage of cases fall i
into that category. l' 3l 4 One piece of information that would be important to l l
., 5 me would be knowledge and awareness of how well the Licensing '
. 6 Board's decision -- which is the basis for the immediate 7 effectiveness rule coming into play -- can withstand the 8 scrutiny of appellate review.
9 MR. OSTRACH: In particular, I am aware of the 10 beliefs of some people that the modified and affirmed decisions l
11 are the ones which most clearly reflect the negative consequences 12 of the immediate effectiveness rule.
() 13 And ALAB 422, the Appeal Board which was the i
14 Seabrook cas~e, the Appeal Board said the Licensing Board l 15 decision was defective. ,
l 16 Its normal course would be to reverse for further l 1
17 hearings, but it was not going to follow that course. It did f
. 18 not want to delay an already delayed proceeding. And thereforel:
I 19 it would itself comb the record for the facts necessary to i i
20 support the conclusions the Licensing Board had reached.
. 21 I am aware of a feeling on the part of the people, 22 and I think the Commission's April 5 memorandum indicates this,lI i 23 that in particular the modified affirmed cases reflect l 24 circumstances where the momentum of construction is such that iA bmI Rmorms, lm.
25 even though the Licensing Board has committed error, or has l l
I
- . _ ~ - -- - _- - - - - . - . _ _ - - - - . . _ - - - . --
r l 8-15 jwb 95 l
1 not done something the way the Appeal Board thinks is appro-
- priate, it stretches to find a justification for it. It l- 3 does the Licensing Board's work for it.
4 And while certainly it is difficult -- those are i..
5 not the cases that we are specifically tasked with looking at,
. 6 I believe Bill is quite right: We should have a feeling, at 7 least, for the number of such cases and perhaps -- well, I ,
8 guess Seabrook might offer an opportunity to look at the l 9 specifics of at least one of them, but it might be helpful. ;
i 10 1 MR. PARLER: Certainly those Appeal Board cases !
l 11 might be ALAB 422 where the Appeal Board expressed the opinion-f 12 I would be very interested in knowing about all of those, !
() 13 because that suggests to me that the appellate body felt 14 constrained because of the results that were before it, 15 because of the immediate effectiveness rule.
l l
16 MR. OSTRACH: I should make it clear, though, '
I however, in the peculiar case of Seabrook, when they issued 17
)
l
. 18 ALAB 422, construction had already been stayed, so they were .
I 19 not confronted with galloping bulldozers, but they were ;
i 20 dealing with a situation where delay costs were mounting. j
, 21 MR. PARLER: I just wondered if such a statement 22 is unique.
l l
- 23 MR. OSTRACH
- 7 om not aware of any other such i
l 24 statement. l lA wel R a m n es,lr* !
l 25 MR. FRYE: Well, Itakeitwhatthegroupissaying,!
t l
i I
i f .. ._ _ _ , _ _ _ ,
.. - . - - - - - - -. - . _ . . - . . - - - . - . - - - . ~ . . . . - . - . - - .
8-16 jwb 96 7
1 then, is that they would like the same sort of thing that has f 2 been done, identifying issues where issues have been modified. i
'~
- 3. MR. COLLINS: Don't we have enough cases in this I
4 list to cull out those for intensive review, and as a separate i
!.*, 5 little task, if you would, go ahead and build this list as i l
. 6 necessary?
7 But at least let us get started on our intensive 8 review --
9 . MR. OSTRACH: -Oh, definitely. :
i i i 10 IUt. COLLINS: -- from the inventory that we have '
11 on John Frye's memo?
12 MR. SEGE: 'I think the answer to Paul's question is j l f 'T l (j/ 13 that there may be cases of different sorts besides those that 14 happen to be listed in John Frye's list, the basic criteria 15 that he applied, that may call this group's attention to some i l
16 other things that we need to take into account.
l 17 I would, incidentally, add to the inventory any l
18 cases in which sunk costs were a factor in adjudication, along :
1 19 the lines that you had approached in a different way in f
l 20 commenting upon the affirmed modified cases. !
! . 21 MR. OSTRACH: I was just going to ask you. Are 22 you aware of any such, George, other than Seabrook?
i 23 MR. SEGE: No, I am not. But if there are such, i 24 they should be inventoried. If there are none, that would be
,Mhowinammm.ine. :
25 comforting to-know. I just don't know. I would like to, and l
l
..-c , . ~ . , , . . ,- . - _.
.. . - - __ - -_ . - - . - . _ - - . - - . ~ . . - - - . - . _ - _ _ _ . - - - . . .
8-17 jwb 97 l j I would like the inventory to list any such cases.
(
2 MR. OSTRACH: There's a Licensing Board decision l- 3. in Midland that went off on sunk costs, but the Appeal Board, I
4 while affirming their decision, removed the sunk cost basis.
j,. 5 They said it was not a sunk-cost decision,. after all.
l
. 6 MR. SEGE: I think it should be in the inventory 7 so we could see that.
8 DR. SPANGLER: May I express some rather serious 9 apprehension about the Midland case as being a bona fide or i
10 desirable case study? !
l 11 It involved very unusual circumstances of the sale I 12 of co-generation steam, and got into a very tough financial
() r 13 as well as environmental, you know, set of problems -- need l
l 14 for power -- it has probably the extreme of complexity in i
15 terms of issues. Not the thing that I think, in my mind, l
l 16 constitutes something of a blemish, is this co-generation ;
t 17 idea. j l I
18 It is so atypical for that reason that I just don't !
I
. 19 feel that we get the sort of insight out of it that we might j l
20 otherwise desire.
l
. 21 MR. PARLER: Let me tell you, Miller, why I think l
l l 22 we get some insight out of it, some considerable insight in
! connection with the mission, as I understand it, of this 23 l 4
24 committee. '
A wel Roo,wrs, Inc.
! 25 There were any number of stay requests filed in the j
l 3 .
- - __ . . ~ , . _ . . . _ . , _ . . _ _ _ .
r 8-18 jwb 98 I course of that proceeding. As far as I am aware, it might --
-O 2 the issue 3 are still being adjudicated in that proceeding.
3 l It was a proceeding that was the subject of issues I
4 that were -- they came before the courts of the United States,
.. 5 including the United States Supreme Court.
. 6 S we have a spectrum of areas which can be examined 7 from the standpoint of what came about because of the 8 immediate effectiveness rule, at least in part.
9 DR. SPANGLER: I see the merit of that. Perhaps 10 what we really haven't come to grips with yet is this -- what I l
jj our plans or thoughts might be with regard to just a small 12 number of case studies as I have outlined, versus the larger 13 number.
14 Now if we are thinking of that as a way of proceed-1 15 ing, perhaps in this larger number of things that are studied !
16 in less detail than Midland can very appropriately be an f 17 example of, you know, legal and adjudicative issues. l u
. 18 i-1R . PARLER: What we are trying to do is identify I l
I 19 the proceedings which, it seems to me, wculd be important at j 20 least to some extent fo.1 some of the questions that are on the 21 list.
l l
22 DR. SPANGLER: Fo'r the List A of mine, that's right; 23 but not for the List B. I want to make that distinction. ;
24 MR. OSTRACH: Your List A is what?
A er:I Resorters, Inc. '
25 DR. SPANGLER: My List A is the ones that are I l
4
.,c,,
p 8-19 jwb 99 1 limited to adjudicatory problems where they developed after
-O 2 an LWA or CP was issued, and construction proceeded -- substan-3 tial construction proceeded after this with adjudicatory i I
4 issues still outstanding.
They would be like St. Lucie and Seabrook who would
. . 5
. . 6 . meet that criterion.
7 And then the List B were ones where this --
8 deliberately chosen where this was not a problem, where things 9 proceeded, at least insofar as that problem was concerned, i
10 proceeded on a more normal basis of development. !
l MR. OSTRACpl: I think that's it.
11 Weagreethatthatj 12 is the approach.
13 DR. SPANGLER: Well, then, I don't suppose I have 34 any problem with what Bill is saying about Midland as long l l
15 as it wasn't in the more restricted group of case studies that !
16 I feel should be addressed with the design that I have ,!
I 17 outlined here.
l
. 16 Am I confusing anybody? j i
19 MR. OSTRACH: I am afraid you are. l 20 I had thought that both your groups A and B would
. 21 be subjected --
22 DR. SPANGLER: To the same depth of study?
73 MR. OSTRACH: Yes.
24 DR. SPANGLER: That wasn't what I understood your I s moonen, tac.
t 25 suggestion to be when I said -- my remarks that I have in the
8-20 jwb 100 l transcript about the dichotomy of one with the more restricted n 1 d 2 scope, and then another one with --
~ i 3 MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of I* attempting to make progress on this point, I wonder if the' 4 _
l, . . 5 committee could agree on the intensive study cases that I
. 6 have suggested: Midland, Seabrook, and St. Lucie 2, at least 7 tentatively?
8 MR. SEGE: This member of the committee does agree.
9 MR. COLLINS: I think it is a good choice. ;
i i 10 HR. FRYE: I'll agree.
I 11 MR. IRELAND: I agree, i 12 IIR. LOVELACE: I'll agree.
, () 13 1 01. OSTRACH: I'll agree.
14 MR. CHO: I'll agree. ;
l i
15 MR. SPANGLER: That makes it unanimous. !
i 16 MR. OSTRACT.: I think those three certainly. Can ,
l !
17 anyone think of any others of what Miller l'as referred to, ;
I 18 the group A cases, the cases where there have been problems? {-
t
- i ,
19 MR. COLLINS: I would like to defer to John Frye j i
l 20 to say if, in his study up to date on these cases he cited, j l t if he feels there are some, and give us the reasons why, and !
. 21 I
22 we can discuss those.
23 MR. FRYE: Well, perhaps the thing to do is to go l
24 down the list of cases, and I will describe, to the extent A bws noorwn. w. !
. 25 I can, what I found. And I will have to emphasize that, as I l l
l 1
l l.
1 8-21 jwb 101 '
1 was doing tnis, I was doing it hurriedly,.and I was relying 2 on the head notes where I had head notes on which I could 3 rely.
4 The first one, Three Mile Island, the Appeal Board 5 disagreed with the adequacy of the records as to the proba-
. 6 bility that an airplane might crash into the site, the site 1
7 being close to the Harrisburg International Airport.
8 MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman, that's an operating l 9 license proceeding, so the question should be asked as to j
> u 10 whether we want to, at this stage, consider operating license l l
11 proceedings.
12 MR. OSTRACH: My understanding is that we were
) 13 not going to, but we were going to raise that question with ,
l 14 the Commission. So I think we can pass Three Mile Island. l 15 MR. FRYE: So we will pass that. ,
i 16 Hartsville, apparently what happened at Hartsville i 17 is that there's an endangered species of mussel which resides I t !
18 4 in the river next to the plant, and the controversy over the i
19 location of the diffuser, if I am correct, had to do with !
l 20 whether it might affect that mussel. ',
. 21 My general recollection is -- although I am not l j
22 too sure -- is that there was some sort of a determination by 23 the Department of Interior that was involved in this. I forget 24 the precise reasons why the Appeal Board reversed the approval ,
A al Reporters, Inc.
25 of the upstream location and the downstream location.
l
8-22 jwb 102 It is a little simil'ar to Seabrook, in that, as I 2 recall, it did involve another federal agency review of a l 3
pr blem.
4 MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman, in addition to what John
,. . 5 has talked about 6n Hartsville, my research on Hartsville, froml '
. 6 the standpoint of the stay criteria, indicates that there was h
7 a request for a stay in Hartsville which was based on grounds '
1 8
which, at least in part, opposed the immediate effectiveness 9
rule.
i 10 i The stay was not granted. It would seem to me that i
11 for that reason, as well as the ones that John gave, that l
i 12 Hartsville might be a good candidate for the expanded list.
1 I( 33 MR. OSTRACH: Hartsville is a TVA facility, a four-j4 unit TVA facility. Do you have any feeling that TVA would I 15 either be particularly willing or unwilling to cooperate with I
16 us? i
- j i 1 37 MR. LOVELACE
- I have a feeling they would be I 18 "HWilliD9- f I i 39 MR. OSTRACH: That was my general impression of ; j 1
.i 20 TVA.
I I
21 MR. COLLINS: We could always invoke the Freedom- I I
22 of-Information Act against. them.
i 23 MR. CHO: One question I have is, it's an active l
I 24 case now pending, I think, before the Appeal Board. '
A n s n.cor m s,inc. .
25 MR. FRYE: Is it? I thought it was closed down.
l l
8-23 jwb 103 1 DR. SPANGLER: I think the endangered species A
-(_) problem has been resolved.
2 I talked with one of our 3 environmental specialists about that problem, that particular
~
. 4 problem, at Hartsville, and they did consult with the DOI and
., 5 NOAA was also consulted, and they came up with the feeling
, 6 that if this thing was -- the intake and discharge was 7 located in this revised way, that it would not have a signifi-8 cant impairment of the critical habitat.
9 That's the key word there, phrase, in the Endangered 10 Species Act dealing with this, and therefore they could proceed.l 11 MR. CHO: I recall that that question has come up l
12 again, and it is now pending before --
() 13 MR. FRYE: Is it pending? I didn't realize that.
14 I thought it was closed. I didn'.t know whether perhaps radon i
15 might be outstanding. j 16 MR. COLLINS: I would like to suggest, if somebody l l
17 knows if a case is still active, that we immediately say:
, 18 Okay, regardless of how interesting it might be, we shouldn't i
19 consider it.
20 MR. OSTRACH: That would also rule out Sehbrook and I i
. 21 Midland.
22 MR. FRYE: It would.
! 23 DR. SPANGLER: But I thought, at the very first 24 meeting -- and Bill led the discussion on this point -- wasn't ,
. Allkwu nummn. ine. l 25 it that we should approach the problem of ex parte, you know, r
l en .- n- .
8-24 jwb 104 j in the manner of our deliberations not having an impact on b] 2 those decisions; that we were not going to comment on things that would -- l i
a
~
4 MR. OSTRACH: 1here is a statement in the record
., 5 that I made, I believe, at our first meeting, the afternoon
, 6 session, that dealt with that subject.
7 DR. SPANGLER: I don't believe you referred to it 8
as "ex parte," but that was on my mind. And if you hadn't 9 raised it, I had intended to raise it at that meeting, because i
p) : that was on my mind, too. i and 49 ji ,
12 s,
13 t
I4 15 i
16 l
17 1
. 18 !
l 1 i
19 i i,
20 I l I l
l . 21 22 I
23 s !
24 A w"J Roorwrs,1%. i j 25 l,
a
i
(. 105 I
i R3065 MR. OSTRACH: I believe it is very unlikely that 2
' tape 10 any actions this group takes will impair the Commission's ,
,~
I 3
david 1 i ability to decide these cases. So anyhow, I would caution l any group member who worked particularly on an intensive 5
study of'Hartsville from later participating. And this 0
would mostly apply, I guess, to John Cho, John Frye, and 7
myself, and George, from working on an adjudicatory review O
of that particular case'.
9 But we would just have to be cautious. I certainly l 10 I
! don't believe that anything we are likely to do would lead ,
11 me to have to disqualify myself from Seabrook. I don't 12 believe that the fact that a case is still open this early !,
13 should disable it from being added to our list, particularly in view of the fact that that would take up two of the 15 three cases that we unanimously agreed we should look at.
6 l DR. SPANGLER: And I think the probability I7 estimate seems to be that Seabrook is relatively winding
. 18 down, perhaps before we make a report.
MR. OSTRACH: So are we all, I'm afraid.
20 (Laughter.) .
- l. 21 MR. CHO: What is relevant, though, is the 22 question of whether we would need information from the l 3
applicant or whether that kind of information we would need iA 2.rs m.oorwri, i .
ties in with issues that are still active in an adjudicatory 25 ljsense.
j ,
I
i L l 106l l
f^dd2 I MR. OSTRACH: I think'we should be sensitive V
2 !
to those questions if an when they arise. I don't think they 3l l
are very likely to, certainly not in the cases of Seabrook
, i 4
and Midland, both of which are still alive on rather limited !
l
. . S questions.
{
6 MR. COLLINS: So, did we decide to include f i
7 Hartsville? l 8
MR. OSTRACH: I was going to raise that. What 9
did we decide to do with Hartsville? ;
10 !
MR. FRYE: Hartsville is one of the most hotly '
' contested cases we have had at thelicensing board level, and 12 I think perhaps it's a good one to put in, if John doesn't j 13 '
Y have a problem with the fact that it may still be pending.
l# Well, could we accept it subject to that' MR. CHO:
15 verification?
16 MR. OSTRACH: Certainly. We have got to be aware I7 of the fact that one of the nost important elements of this
" 18 is cooperation of the utility.
l' Is there any feeling amongst those who deal more 20 directly with utilities than I that TVA would be prepared to i
21 give us adequate cooperation' '
22 MR. COLLINS: I think Miller mentioned this, and 23 l we could take care of it by having a slightly expanded list. ,
1 Aq O 5ersi Reporters, Inc.# MR. OSTRACH: That's a good idea.
MR. COLLINS: And see which of the six are willing i l
l 107
(^ jid3 I to cooperate with us, four or five, and then go with them.
! V 2 j DR. SPANGLER: Yes, I think we ought to have a
~ t i 3l list, and then I think perhaps I or Paul could start phoning I
. I 4' !
r up a few of these utilities and describe our study,, mail them !
I 5
draft copies of what we have on our minds and have a j
6
- . feeling or exploration process to determine -- you know, 7
I can think of some~stu y designs that a utility wouldn't 8
want to touch with a 10 foot pole, and others, if they're 1
9 properly constrained and oriented to something that looks 10 I like it's really going to be productive, they might be ,
l II willing to help out. I don't know.. 1 12 MR. OSTRACH: ' Tentatively, at least, then let's 13 include Hartsville, subject again to both Professor Milhollin Id and the Commission's further review.
15 The next one is Marble Hill.
16 MR. FRYE: Okay, Marble Hill. This was an I7 interesting problem. The location of the boundary between 18 Kentucky -- the reason the location of the boundary between I
Kentucky and Indiana was important was because Kentucky ;
20 was very upset about the fact the plant was going up and
. 21 claimed to have authority under the Federal Water Pollution 22 l Control Act to issue the 401 certification for the discharge. '
23 ll Indiana claimed it had the authority to issue the 401 24 O certification for the discharge.
Ai jera r:.oorters, inc. ;
25 And consequently, the location of the boundary a
108 I
f Agvid4 became very important.
V 2 The appeal board remanded a full hearing. As I i
~
3l; recall, the licensing board decided the issue on motions, '
l
- -4 I think, or something similar to that.
- 5 MR. PARLER: Does anybody know whether the l
6 construction got underway promptly?
l 7
MR. FYRE: Yes.
i i 8
MR. OSTRACH: Marble Hill is a lawyer's dream i
9 case. And there is this one legal issue. But there is a , i i
10 !
tremendous amount of public interest in Marble Hill.I have ,.
received and distributed to the panel at least two, I think, 12 letters from people in the Marble Hill area -- I thought G
Q 13 I distributed to members of the panel letters from people
- j I#
in the Marble Hill area urging us to consider the effect of l 15 the immediate effectiveness rule on the Marble Hill adjudication.
16 i
DR. SPANGLER: I think this would be a mobt. interesting I7 case study.
18 MR. PARLER: I agree, Mr. Chairman.
I
. MR. COLLINS: Marble Hill. I agree.
20 MR. PARLER: That is clear that would be on the
. 21 less intensive list? I 22 l MR. FRYE: I thought we were on the intensive list. ! j t
1 i
l 23 b ML. OSTRACH: We are putting it tentatively on the -
! 24 erd Reporters, Inc, intensive list, the theory being some of these will seJect 25 j themselves out.
I I . _ _ . - . . _ _ . . - - - . . .-- .. . .- . -- . . . .-
, _. .- - _ ~ . . . _ . _ _ . -. _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ ._ ..
109 vid5 I
-MR. PARLER: I see. I thought we were talking 2
about the three categories. I don't want to backtrack. !
6
- 1 i 3
g MR. OSTRACH: I think we should understand what 4
we're talking about. '
I
- I 5
MR. PARLER: Yes, che complete inventory of cases f
6 which would cover everything we could find. But the final ;
7 product of the inventory will be a chart something like this 8
with numbers down at th e bottom.
9 MR. OSTRACH: Yes.
10 MR. PARLER: Then we are going to have from that !
II complete inventory the cases that we would get, data that 12 Paul and Miller and the others here would provide, the
( I3 various sreas that Miller has suggested, particularly what I4 is happening in the construction area while the appellate 15 arguments are going on.
16 ,
And I thought out of those we were going to select 17 a few that should receive particular scrutiny, not only from 18 the standpoint of data that Miller and Paul will provide the l9 others, but also from the legal standpoint.
20 MR. OSTRACH: Perhaps what we should be thinking ,
21 about is the category we are working on now, which I have 22 l -
a feeling in the'hard case list, will be about six or eight, j l
23 easy; and the good case list will be shorter, will be that 24 i
second category you mentioned.
, ei n corers, Inc. g 25 k And the third category, the ones with the most '
t I e y---e y e - + -
110 I
pvid6-- detailed analysis,will be the ones where that is feasible, v i' 2 i as a result of working with the second category. I
~ '
i 3
I mean, if we had an applicant that adamantly '
"' -d refused to participate or if the computer tape on the l
5 Marble Hill applications somehow were wiped, we simply couldn't I 6
do the more detailed analysis.
7 MR. PARLER: Yes, I raised the question because ncw BU 8 I thought Midland, Seabrook and St. Lucie II were not only 9
deemed to be appropriate for the intensive study, but maybe 10 I were all that were needed for intensive study purposes; s
11 im other words, were the best candidates that we could think 12 of at this time for an intensive study. ;
13 I thought that milestorewas behind us. !
I Id MR. OSTRACH: Well I thought that we wanted --
-15 I agree with you. Those are certainly the three strongest 1 16 candidates. But I am afraid, as Miller pointed out, that I7 some might die at the wayside for a variety of reasons, and
- I8 when we make our selection from your category two to your I'
category three, quite possibly, if we are finding good 20{ information or acceptable infor;ation from all of the eight .
21 hard cases, we will .say that the three that we could pick will !
22 be Seabrook, St. Lucie, and Midland. !
I i 23 '
But rather than making that decision now, I would i 24 A fS eral Reporters, Inc.
like to list the eight, begin the information gathering on ,
25 i those eight in case Seabrook, St. Lucie, and Midland drop out. ' -
1 I
i
l l 111!
I I
- tid 7 MR. PARLERr ~ Fine , that clarifies it very l 2
nicely. ;
- l e
- MR. OSTRACH
- And I think we only need -- we have l
five now. Only one, two, perhaps three more for this
- 5 l' category before we go into the category of the model cases, 6
the cases w'.lere things functioned smoothly is all that we i 7
need.
i 8
MR. COLLINS: Could I make a suggestion that we !
9 go to the earlier date pages then and select from there ,
10 !
so we could have a couple of complete case where there is t
no chance of compromising the applicant or running into 12 reluctance because the case is still under consideration. '
O V 13 MR. OSTRACH: We have two choices: we have Id !
your suggestion and we have the fact that it is slightly 15 afternoon by my watch.
16 I recognize this isn't particularly a natural ;
place for a break, but c we wish to break for lunch now
. 18 or press on for..another half an hour or 45 minutes?
~
MR. COLLINS: I would just as soon get this i
intensive list out of the way now.
l
. 21 MR. OSTRACH: Fine, we will continue. i 22 l MR. FRYE: I do have one thought as to whether j 23 it's going back in time -- there's a certain advantage to the 24
. ASerLI Reporters, Inc. i extent that we can do it to take recent cases, I think.
MR. PARLER: It depends on how far one goes back in
- 6 i
l .. , - - - - - -
~. - - - -
112 avid 8 I time. If one goes back to '71, '72, I don' t think that:would 2 ' 74, '
be particularly useful. But if one goes back to, say, j
~
3, those cases might be useful and they might also be sufficiently
~ i i d
through the process that the real potential concerns Paul 5
)
5 i
.. alluded to might not be there. l
{
6
. Maybe such'a case is barely --
7 MR. COLLINS: I have no objection to what you're 8
saying, but I thought anything after Midland -- I thought l
9
, the Midland case, once we got involved in the environmental ;
i l 10 I aspects as well as the safety aspects was where we were drawing; 11 i the line. If you wnat to draw it at 1974, that's fine with ; l 12 , , ,
13 MR. FRYE: well, let's look at the cases in 1974.
i i Id You have Bailey. This was the proceeding that arose after I0 the CP had issued.
i l'
And as I recall the facts, a certain method of I7 site dewatering had been approved. The appli - then sought 18 to change it by employing a slurry wall, and the Commission
, ordered a hearing. They ordered an expedited hearing. They 20 said how much discovery was to be allowed and told the
. 21 licensing board it was to hurry. Well, the licensing board
')2 did just that. In fact, they did it a little bit too much 23 l in the eyes of the appeal board, because the appeal board 24 thought they had not provided a reasonable opportunity for gu %,, %
25 the intervenors to aprticipate in the hearing.
.-e e. .-o- .w-w.,.==-.**. +4- .
m-. * . - - . . . - _ . , . . . . . .-es..-.-w. %. . . . . .
-- . . . .. _ . - . .. - -. ~- -
1 I i 113i !
i l
I I i
/*,vid9 For that reason, the issue was remanded for a ! l l d 2 I
new hearing.
1~
nl MR. PARLER: There was an emergency stay, I believe,!
4 granted by the appeal board. I'm relying completely on l
3 memory.
- l. 0 MR. FRYE: I am too, and I think there was as !
7 to the slurry wall -- I think they did study the slurry wall.
I 8
I don't recall -- although they were petitioned many times t
{
9 1
to stay the CP, I don't recall that they did.
! MR. OSTRACH: Bailey is an interesting case on i i 11
! other levels as well. It's a case where the court of appeals 12 '
reversed the Commission's decision and then it went to the lA (U 13 Supreme Court which reversed it. And there was a case that I#
is still before the Commission in a 2.206 context.
II DR. SPANGLER: May I suggest that some of our 16 criteria for case selection work at cross purposes, and I I7 think this is inescapable. I'think from a legal standpoint 18 Bailey is very, very interesting. From the standpoint of "I
. learning about the causes of expenditures, history, and 20 that sort of thing, it has less desirable or maybe even i
,. 21 i very inimical characteristics because Bailey was -- the !
l 22 l regulatory licensi r.g procedures when Bailey was given its -- i 23 l when it was proposed by the applicant, it was before the 24
- A A certi Rooorters, Inc.
Calvert Cliffs decision, first of all.
25 And secondly, on this very issue of using a slurry i l
i s
- m. -
l I
l 114I i vid10 I jetting mechanism to do the power driving, that the i i 2
regulatory practice had shifted in the meanwhile from the i
3
[ ; time the application came in because of the long drawn out 4
hearing. '
I
. 5 Our practice for that has changed so drastically 6
that today we would require much'more advanced engineering '
7 i information before we would approve the foundation engineering i 8 )
technology or plan and probably this is;ue would not have '
9 arisen in the context of today's review practices and 10 1 l procedures is what I am saying. l II 1
So, it's poison from that standpoint. We are '
12 looking at a fence that was broken in a context of
'() 13 licensing review procedures that wouldn't exist today. That's
}
Id what I am told because I checked into the seimologists or 15 foundation engineering people that are working on this 16 problem currently, and that was the briefing I got from them 17 about Bailey.
18 MR. PARLER: That well may be true about all of I9
,. these cases, but presumably we learn from experience and 20 the process is an evolving one so that the errors -- in 21 quotation marks -- in the past will not be repeated in the i 22 l
future.
23 I MR. OSTRACH: I hope even Seabrook, the next
! 24 hg us seconm. inc. licensing board will make more accommodation to the problems 25 with EPA. It isn't specific licensing board errors or staff 1
1
115!
i
' I errors or .pplicant errors we are concerned with. It's the !
(d'*1dll 2 :
consequences of the CP being issued and then some intervening !
,! i
- event. '
. i
- I DR. SPANGLER: We have a proposed rule making !
-*- 5 ssue number six that deals with this very problem of greater {
0
. . specification of EPA roles vis-a-vis NRC roles.
7 And the preliminary indicationsfrompublic. comment!
8 suggests that this is receiving some considerable support from e 9
industry to pursue. Whether the Commission will pursue it 10 '
on a priority basis, I do not know or whether they will pursue '
II it at all I do not know, except that in the public interest i 12 this seems to be a good argument for it.
O l V 13 MR. OSTRACH: What is the consensus of the group '
! )
Id on at least tentatively including Bailey and seeing if it 15 plays itself out at the lineup?
MR. SEGE: Mr. Chairman, I don't think from what I7 I hear now -- I don't think we should do that. My suggestion
. 18 would be that wo proceed with the three intensive cases I9
. suggested by Bill. There are a couple of more that we now 20 have as spares. If we should need additional spares, let's '
{
21 pick them then. In the meantime, it would just make up the 22
~
complete inventory with the lesser amount of information, and
! ! i 23 j dn't worry about spares, about spare cases for intensive '
j i '
24 l' study further at this point.
l ASerW Rooorms, Inc.
20 DR. SPANGLER: I feel that the point that was l ,
l l .
l !
i i
- l i l l 116 l l 1 I
idl2 raised, if we really look carefully, we might find something 2
to poison or object to any proposed case. That worries me, l- ni l ; I think I am less inclined to vote against Bailey despite !
j l
the objections that are raised for thatreason. I think what l l
- - 5 is important for us to understand, whichever case we pick j i
6
. up, is how we interpret, you know, the data that we are l j i ,
7 l
getting and what allowances to make for unusual circumstances 8
in our analysis of the case study.
If that is handled properly, then I don't think ,
10 I we need to give quite so much attention to the blemishes of ,
l' cases.
12 MR. OSTRACH: George's proposition, as I understand 13 it, is to stop now; say that w e have three cases that we i
l Id I will study intensively. We have two cases that we will turn 15 to if one of those three breaks down and to pass immediately 16 to the consideration the control cases that we will study I7 intensively where problems did not arise.
. 18 If the group feels that three cases to be
" replaced if necessary is sufficient and that the three cases 20 l
that Bill outlined a long time ago -- Seabrook, St. Lucie, ;
. 21 and Midland -- are the appropriate three cases, I guess what 22 l we ought to do then is stop.
23 Is that a consensus?
MR. COLLINS: I think that's a good idea.
' Fl#Dorfers, Inc.
MR. PARLER: I would agree with that. But to pick ,
i e
i
I i
117l I
idl3 I up on the point that I understood you to have made today 2
and also at our first meeting, I would think the committee 9 1 would want some examples of cases in which the rule has i
4 worked well without presenting substantial problems. Is l 4 5 '
- .. . my understanding --
6 1
, MR. OSTRACH: Yes, that's my understanding of what i 7 t we would go to, the control cases.
8 \
MR. PARLEh: I'm sorry?,
l 9
MR. OSTRACH: You know, you poison some rats and 10 !
l you leave the other rats alone. These are the unpoisoned , l1 11 i I rats. '
l 1
12 (Laughter,. )
( 13 MR. PARLER: I was not with you, Mr. Chairman, Id but I am now.
and 10 15 16 17
, 18 19 l
. I I
20 i i
, 21 ,
1 22
)
! I 23 i l
- l 24 i A( ' jrei namnm. inc.
i I
. ~ . . - _ . - - . ~ . - . . - - -- - - _ _ ~ _ - - . . = . . _ _ _ . - . _
l i
118 CR3065 1
['
tu'p)as 11,12 MR. OSTRACH: Well, let us move to the control l l 2 i l cases; they should be easier.
l-david 1 3 I
MR. CHO: Is this an appropriate time to break for ,
4 1 lunch? j 1
l
. S '
MR. OSTRACH: We will adjourn for lunch. Now, ! l I
6 why don't we then adjourn until a quarter of 2:00. !
7 I
(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was '
8 recessed for lunch to reconvene at 1:45 p.m. !
9 r
10 '
f l I l 11 1
! l l
l 12
i i
14 j l
! 15 l
l 16 , l l
1 17
, 18 19 20
, 21 l
\
I 22 ;
23 !
24 e hers menoners, Inc.
25 {
1
119 ile 2 I AFTERNOON SESSION l
2 (1:45 p.m.)
l 3
MR. OSTRACH: All right. We are resuming this
~
4 i session now. '
5
, .. When we concluded this morning, we had decided 6 i that the three cases that we would study exhaustively j 7
would be Seabrook, St. Lucie II, and Midland, and that B
we would hold Hartsville and Marble Hill in reserve, in a 9
sense, in case it becomes clear that we will be unable to l 10 !
conduct an appropriate analysis of the three lead cases.
)
11 We also agreed to select a second list, perhaps of 'l 12 three cases, to serve as a control representing proceedings j 13 which have flowed smoothly, and which presumably the Id immediate effectiveness rule had had a beneficial effect.
15 In fact I don't even want to say that; proceedings which 16 have flowed smoothly without post CP interruptions.
17 Does anyone have any candidates for those, for 18 the control group?
I9
, DR. SPANGLER: Well, we mentioned WPPS III and 20 V for that group.
- 21 MR. FRYE: Catawba might be one. '
22 DR. SPANGLER: Yes, those were mentioned this 23 morning, both of those.
MR. PARLER: Hope Creek might be a useful case to
- herei neoorvers, inc.
25 examine.
i
- . , . , . ..e. . .
_ - . _ . . ._ ._ -. . . . - _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . ~ . . _ . _ _ . - . - -._..._.__..______.._.~_.m t
120 i ,
i I
("Nid3 MR. COLLINS: That's the case that was transferred, l N-) ,
wasn't it? i I ;
3i
~ t j Is that why you're mentioning it? !
MR.PARLER: I mentioned it because it was a case !
i !
- 0 in which subsequent to the issuance of a construction perr l
6.
a problem was discovered, and things were worked out so that l t
7 that problem could be addressed and resolved with the 8
assurance that there would be no ongoing construction work which would prejudice the resolution of the new issue.
10 !
MR. OSTRACH: Let's see, we have Hope Creek, which i
11 is in Pennsylvania, I believe; Catawba is in South '
12 Carolina; WPPOSis in the Pacific Northwest. ;
i i
( 13 MR. COLLINS: Hope creek is in New Jersey, isn't '
L I 14 '
it?
MR. FRYE: I think it is. It's on the Delaware 16 River, I think. -
I MR. OSTRACH: Seabrook is in New Hampshire; St.
. 18 Lucie in Florida, and Midland in the United States --
. with the exception of -- let's see. We don't have anything 20 in-the prakie area. We don't have anything in California,
" 2I but other than that I think we have a fairly reasonable 22 .
spread.
i I
23 When we are talking about six we certainly can't ,
g ,, ,, 24 exhaustively cover the United States.
~
DR. SPANGLER: In the prairie area, I think La Sallei
--..#w.-= e . s. -..m... .w..ow..*r.-e*
- 7 am.e-
~ . . - - - . - - . . . . . -~ . . . - . - . - . - - _ .
121 I
I
- ds"4d4 would have perhaps an interesting study.
O 2
{ ;
MR.- PARLER: You have three choices in the i
~
2
- - prairie area
- Wolf Creek, La Salle, or Black Fox.
~
4 MR. OSTRACH: Is there ar.y preference amongst '
5 those?
6
, MR. COLLINS: We're looking for smooth cases.
l 7 l MR. OSTRACH: .Yes. Smooth cases, cases where !
I' 8
the CP -- where construction began after it was issued , j 9
CP and it was continued ever since.
10 DR. SPANGLER: Or construction wasn't interrupted. ,
II
, I think that's what we're saying.
12 MR. FRYE: Palo Verde in the southwest.
13 .
DR. SPANGLER: I, II, and III, Palo Verde I, II, 14 and III.
15 MR. FRYE: IV and V are new cases.
I0 i
DR. SPANGLER: Then there's some Texas plants.
! 17 MR. OSTRACH: We don't want an exhaustive list here.
18 We just want a few controls that we're going to study in I9 I
, great detail. Palo Verde has been suggested; Black Fox 20 and La Salle.
2I MR. COLLINS :
Palo Verde was less than two years '
22 from tendering the application to issuance of a CP.
23 MR. FRYE: Palo Verde was basically an uncontested 24 case. It might be good to have an uncontested case in our
- Ah rai n. corms. anc. ;
25 i group.
l e
a.______,. ._.. ..- .- - --
t 122 i
l l I
(Irvid5 MR. OSTRACH: I think it probably would. '
2 !
DR. SPANGLER: It hasn't had a very long -
i construction period, however.
l MR. COLLINS: 5/76; that's two years of j
- 5 construction.
j 6
. MR. OSTRACH: Why don't we say Palo Velle. Of -
l 7
the other ones, which two should we pick?
- 1 8
'MR. COLLINS: Which ones are you looking at? l t
I 9
MR. OSTRACH: WPPE, Catawba, Hope Creek, La Salle, 10 '
Black Fox.
MR. COLLINS: Let's take Catawba.
I2 DR. SPANGLER: Then let's make it WPPS III and V. j 13 I think we ought to have something in the northwest.
l#
MR. COLLINS: Catawba was three years from I3 tendering the application.
6 DR. SPANGLER: Didn't we get Catawba in that?
I7 MR. OSTRACH: We have a long list, and we're
. 18 trying to select from it.
I' I DR. SPANGLER: I thought now we had mentioned 20 three: Palo Verde, Catawba and WPPSSIII and V. That's what 21 I heard or thought I heard.
22 MR. OSTRACH: We mentioned a number -- we have ,
I 23 l only, I think, agreed on Palo Verde.
24 er:I Reporters, Inc.
!! MR. FRYE: Catawba had some unusual problems 25 associated with it, but none, I think that affect the
1 i
123 -
I t vid6 immediate effectiveness study. j 1
2 !
MR. LOVELACE: They had a financial delay of about >
e g a year.
~
4 MR. FRYE: They had some problems with regard to 5
. the record that was made; the licensing board was forced {
6 -
i
, to reopen the record. The case went on for a long time as l I 7
a result.
i 8
DR. SPANGLER: That's due case, isn't it?
9 MR. FRYE: Yes, it's a due case.
10 MR. OSTRACH: Do you think we should drop it from II the 1 sit, then?
I2 MR. FRYE: No, I don't think we should. I just i O I' eive this sy way of heckeround. .
i I4 DR. SPANGLER: Why don't we put Catawba in there?
15 I haven't heard any opposition to it.
16 MR. COLLINS: It doesn't bother me.
I7 MR. PARLER: I think the three that you have I8 mentioned for this part of the list are fine.
I'
, MR. OSTRACH: That would be WPPS, Catawba, and 20 Palo Verde?
2I MR. PARLER: Yes.
22 MR. OSTRACH: Is that the consensus then? And i
23 we will leave Hope Creek, La Salle, and Black Fox again as 24 our backups, eral Reporters, Inc, 25 l MR. COLLINS: Let's see; the three are Catawba, l
l
I 124-w id7 I Palo Verde -- !
). 2 3-i MR. OSTRACH: Catawba, Palo Verde I through III, 3
l and WPPS III and V.
4 MR, COLLINS: All right. '
l
}
- 5 MR. OSTRACH: All right, then, let's see. I ,
t 6
. think we have then discussed our case studies. We agreed 7
earlier to put together two inventories, John Frye's and 8
inventory being beefed up, and an inventory of stays. f MR. FRYE: I think if we are going to go back 10 l to the question of my inventory, we perhaps should discuss ,
11 it a little more. I am talking about the beefing.up of my 12 j inventory.
13 I see some problems. First of all, I am a little j Id uncertain as to what it will teach us so far as the immediate 15 effectiveness rule is concerned.
16 Secondly, as I think we are all aware, we have I7 no standard of review for the appeal board at this current
. 18 time, and I think -- well, when I put my study together,
. I tried to incorporate a very simple standard so there 20 wouldn't be any question as to what should be included and
. 21 '
what should not.
I think by trying to go through and analyze 4
23
. appeal board decisions, other than the ones I've catelogued, 24
[(, ,,,
we'are getting into a very subjective task, and I'm not sure 25 I think it would be very time consuming and I'm not sure what l
125
'd~ rid 8 I we would come up with that would be of value in trying to GI 2 decide whether the-immediate effectiveness rule shou]d I 3
- be changed or left in place.
i 4
MR. OSTRACH: I'm sorry. You mean you thought I I'
- 5 was referring to beefing up to including those that were
~
6 modified and affirmed?
7 MR. FRYE: Yes. That would be --
8 MR. OSTRACH: What I had in mind when I said 9
" beefed up," I was merely picking up George's suggestion for 10 !
Commission decisions and court decisions. (
i II 8MR. FRYE: Oh, okay. !
f I2 MR. SEGE: And licensing board consideration?
13 r -
MR. OSTRACH: Sua sponte licensing board I I4 reconsideration.
15 MR. SEGE: Or something that's brought up on 16 staff initiative, which I believe was the case in what I7 Paul mentioned. .
18 MR. COLLINS: That was Perry.
I9
. MR. PARLER: I think for that category of cases 20 which are really staff enforcement cases, that people other ,
I 21 than either John or myself might be in a better '
22 position to collect that information. Those are a different !
?
- l 23 category of cases from the things that John and I have 24 focused on. Maybe John does not agree.
A.,p erei neooriers, Inc. ; ,
l 25 MR. FRYE: You are speaking of orders to show cause '
1 7_:-2 -:. .- -
~
-. - - - - T
126 l
I
(~'id 9 s and that sort of thing? l 2
MR.PARLER: Yes.
I 1i
- MR. FRYE
- Yes, I think you're right; I agree.
. I d
MR. OSTRACH: I think you're right as well. I i
. I 5
- think John can work with us in licensing board matters and 6
. things above that.h the chain, whereas if NRR issues a show j i
7 cause. order, it might be best if one of the NRR or I & E l 8
representatives studied that question.
9 Could we then talk about yet another listing, 10 '
cases in which show cause orders were issued during .
II construction? Callaway -- there war Perry, cases likt i 12 that? -
{
13 Would someone volunteer to prepare that? .
Id No volunteers.
15 MR. COLLINS: I'm a little reluctant to volunteer 16 because I have got this main load of looking at these cases 17 in detail.
' - 18 MR. IRELAND: I'm as light as anyone on assignnents.
I' I I was going to propose, since I am a little light, that I be 20 assigned to be broadened out a bit more to vork with Paul and
. 21 Miller on their assignments. '
f.
22 But I suppose I could take on an additional little ;
23 l exploratory activity on show cause orders'during construction.
2#
A.' MR. OSTRACH: If'you could.
Agoral Reportefs. Inc.
25 MR. IRELAND: Yes.
l ll l
127 i dnvid10 1 MR. OSTRACH: And call upon those who can gise l 2
you assistance if you need it. -
2, In each of these cases, by the way, this 1
4 i discussion that we are talking about today as to John's ,
5
.. list,'what we are looking for right now is a plan of work
,t f j 6
_ that we will be sending to Gary Milhollin in the next week l 1
7 !
i or so for including in the discussion in the interim report j 8
and perhaps for attachment -- as an appendix for the
- 9 1
interim report, and that's what these assignments are.
10 1 l It's still possible that it might turn out tha-II i
a person can't complete that or that it more appropriately ,
i 12 belongs to someone else but we need to get our thoughts on
()
13 how that will be done -- rather tha1 in fact having it Id :
done in a week or something.
15 John, obviously, is way ahead of the game because o
I he F t slmost completed his listing. So you can expect that 17 you will have a listing -- '
18 MR. PARLER: I can assure you that a complete i 19
, inventory of cases which I would have confidence in would 20 not be available within a week or so.
21 MR. OSTRACH: That's my point, is a plan of work 22 is all they were talking about at this point.
23 [ MR. PARLER: The reason I made *.he comment, I was 24 kind of surprised that a person would even think that this Agghwsneo*,s.i=.
25 work would even be completed in a week. We have tc dig through er.u w ..%-.,-m.. ,e. ... . -
l l
128 -
I idll the books..
2 MR. OSTRACH: Yes, right, I agre= with you. I
~
3{ Whrt about the compendium dealing with the -
t subject of -- or what about the subject of decisions chat i
5
. have been modified but affirmed? John indicates it would !
l 6
, be difficult and subjective to compile an exhaustive listing. {
7 Would it be best if we just got a few illustrative examples !
8 for reference?
I MR. SEGE: I would favor that, and I would certainly; 10 !
feel that the few examples to help illustrate the sort of thing that sometimes happens would have almost as much usefulness as an exhaustive list and would be more practical. {
13 I would trust the judgment of one or two of my Id colleagues on the study group to make appropriate selections.
15 MR. OSTRACH: John?
6 MR. FRYE: Well, it seems to me what might be I7 i
of value to us along these lines would be any cases in which 18 the appeal board or the Commission for some reason felt that ,
f 19 j , sunk costs influenced their decision. I think that's the sort 0
of study.that might be of help to us in studying the immediate 21 effectiveness rule.
i 22 MR. COLLINS: Would this appear in a written ruling. j 23 They'd consider it one of their considerations was the amount 24 A
m met Recorms, Inc.
of costs?
25 DR. SPANGLER: The NRC would be anguished over that.
i i l
l l 129 I
id12 MR. FRYE: Yes, they were concerned about that f
in seabrook. I honestly don't know whether this was of !
l~ >
l 3 i concern in other cases or not.
' 1 d
DR. SPANGLER: It would have happened in the '
l l l 0
l, Greene County case except we are rejecting the site. l 6
, MR. FRYE: Well, the Greene County case is still 7
in hearing. There has not been a decision in Greene County f 8
yet, not a board decision.
i 9
DR. SPANGLER: That's true; the FES -- I'm ,
10 !
saying the staff recommendation is to reject the site. ,
11 MR. FRYE: Yes, I know.
12 MR. OSTRACH: Well, could you -- I hate to keep i, 13 asking these things, but you have this knowledge o.f licensing i
14 1 board decisions. Do you think you could come up with a l 15 short list of licensing board decisions illustrative of 16 both modified but affirmed and also -- and I'm sure this I7 will be a short list -- a lit of decisions in which some l 18 costs explicitly played a role? I think I could almost name I
19 l
, them: Seabrook and Midland at the licensing board. And 20 Sterling, there was seine discussion of sunk costs, and I 21 really don't know if there were any others.
22 But would you add those two things with the 23 l understanding that this is right now a matter of work plan 24 l, Ar);ral Reporters, Inc. #
25 but they will not be discussed in the same exhaustive sense l I
1 1
,w een m . ng.n.em 4 ap.. e gew 3
- Wr m te -.- *
- l 130 !
I where we are talking about the Seabrook and Catawba evid13 2 '
l l exhaustive discussions. these are narrative idscussions.
o!
- DR. SPANGLER
- On this subject of sunk cos2, 4
I would like to reiterate what I said at the previous meeting, I
{
5
, that sunk cost is not the kind of perspective we like to l
6
, place upon these kinds of impacts and cost benefit analysis; 7
we prefer to refer to them as forward costs. !
8 That's a very important distinction and one of 9
my colleagues in environmental technology is in the l 10 i throes of developing a paper outlining the methodology. We II have done it in hearings, by the way. So it is not entirely 12 a newly formulated conceptual p:1per. .
13 But he is working on a computer model related to I#
the concept model for estimating forward costs. But the 15 paper will also deal with other attributes of the forward 16 cost problem. And this should be available in the next I7 several weeks, according to his schedule, unless other 18 priorities upset this preparation.
I
, MR. OSTRACH: When I said sunk costs, ther. I assumed --
20 and Bill and John also refer to sunk costs -- I think we all 21 meant, as the Commission said in the March '77 Seabrook i
22 decision, forward costs.
23 I DR. SPANGLER: Yes, that's the appropriate concept, '
24 yes.
,,2i neoorwrs,inc.
MR. OSTRACH: My usage was loose, I'm afraid. Let
.- . - - . - . . - - . = .-. .. --. - - , . _
I 131 l I us get back then to George's outline. l We have been on a evid14 1
2l frolic of our own right here. Since the identification of
~
I 3
these case studies is one of the cross cutting items referred '
4 to in section 4.2 -- now the rest of section 4.2 requires '
i
- 5
. each of us who is assigned to a task to prepare a work l 6
, plan for Professor Milhollin within the next week and a half 7
or two weeks.
8 We launched off on this discussion of cases ,
9 because of George's proper suggestion that that was a cross 10 !
cutting item that we ought to resolve, and we did. But I II return to where we were awhile ago. Are there any other '
12 items that we believe are not sufficiently assigned so i 1
13 that someone feels responsible for producing a plan of study?
14 MR. SEGE: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the \
15 items 4.2, it is the study group leader with the asterisk 16 next to his name who has the responsibility and responsibility I7 for updating inputs of others; is that correct?
18 MR. OSTRACH: Unless it was changed as a result of 19 l the discussions.
20 MR. SEGE: Sometimes an asterisk has been moved 21 and also the revised position of the asterisk.
22 MR. OSTRACH: That primarily applies to the l
23 ones in tasks la through 1h. ;
4 All of the tasks in number two, 24 which is the stay section, have been combined for the stay 2 $.r.i n oorms, inc. ;
25 working group and John Cho has the lead on that. Task three
. _ , , _ _ . . , _ _ _ , - . . . ~+ - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ' ' - - " '
I 132 !
l I
is assigned to me, I-believe, because that deals with the I tvidl5 2 appellate system.
~
I 3 MR. SEGE: '
- Yes, you have the asterisk.
MR 'OSTRACH:
I have the asterisk in task three. ,
5
, Task four -- i l
6
.. MR. SEGE: In my copy you have the asterisk on that.
7 MR. OSTRACH: That's odd. In my copy --
8 MR. SEGE: There is no asterisk at all. The .
9 asterisk was put there at the last meeting, I believe, into i 10 i your column.
i II MR. OSTRACH: Well, if I have the responsibility 12 on task.four -- we're talking about the same thing, proceedings I3 '
other than direct review?
Id MR. SEGE: Yes. '
15 l MR. OSTRACH: I must have been out of the room at 16 the time, l
I7 MR. SEGE: That's probably how it happened.
18 (Laughter.)
I I9 I MR. PARLER:
, We must be talking about some room 20 other than the committee meeting room, because this was prepared 21 before the committee ever met. I 22 DR. SPANGLER: That's right, and Professor Milhollin 23 indicated there would be some rejuggling of assignments. But
)
i 24 as far as I know, there was very little attention given to that g,rc n.conen, inc.
25 l apsect of it.
l
133 favidl6 I MR. PARLER: Well, I think we have it resolved now.
2 MR. OSTRACH: Task five --
3l MR. COLLINS: There is an asterisk there for DPM.
4 In my paper I have got a big question mark on it as to why 5
it was given to DPM.
6 MR. OSTRACH: Who should prepare the work plan 7
then for task five?
8 MR. FRYE: Isn't task five really a sort of 9
summation of findings in this study? l 10 MR. OSTRACH: Perhaps it was the decision that we reached earlier on when we went through this the first l 12 '
time, that that could only be addressed after we had l
{
Q. 13 finished our --
I4 MR. PARLER: That is my recollection.
15 DR. SPANGLER: Yes, we postponed five and six.
16 MR. OSTRACH: That's what it was, i
17 MR. SEGE: So the work plan would not involve any ,
I8 immediate work. Eventually it will involve work. ,
I9
, MR. FRYE: That's the way I view it. I think it 20 really calls for our ultimate conclusions.
2I I All right, then, so we will just have !
MR. OSTRACH:
22
. to write a brief sentence to that effect for both of those.
23 All right, let's continue with -- stepping back for a moment, 24 b.[s] neoorim, Inc.
, 4.1 in George's outline, general approach, you are going to l 25 do that, George; is that correct?
l
i
~
134 i
I havid17 MR. SEGE: Yes, if the chairman itssigns it to me, 2
I will do it.
3 MR. OSTRACH: Well, it's just that you seem to be i
, the only person who fully understood what was considered in 5
there. You wrote it, George.
~
6 MR. SEGE: Sure, I will be glad to do it, l* 7 Mr. Chairman, i
8 MR. OSTRACH: 4.2, we have now gone through all of )
l 9
the items, all of the subtasks, and we have agreed that the [
. i 10 persons assigned will each separately do that work. We are i 11 '
now on section 4.3, then. '
12 John, you earlier volunteered under pressure to 13 Q write a discussion of the public input. Would you also 14 i be -- of the past public participation. Would you be interested
" in also picking up this?
MR. CHO: I'm not sure what George had in mind II '
.there.
18
- MR. SEGE: I guess there, Mr. Chairman, I just had
, a half page or so set aside to indicate what our continued 20 plan is for obtaining public participation. We will generally 21 be implementing that section of the April '78 "Chilkogram" 22 that deals with public participation and will continua, 23
- ,- I presume, what we have been doin; so far.
24 g , And it also provides a place for taking up the ;
25 I suggestion that has been made that we have one or mora meetings; L
i !
,+ . - , . . .
I i
135 ;
I dcvidl8 I outsideofWashington,andIthoughtthatshouldbementioned,l t
r) 2 that it was considered, but that barring strong evidence !
kJ
{
3 l that it would be worthwhile than we have now, we don't i
4 plan to do it. I 5
If the Commission feels differently, I think we i
. I 6
should nevertheless meet somewhere else sometimes.
7 MR. OSTRACH: You're saying it's only three or C
four sentences?
9 MR. SEGE: Yes, that is all that I had in mind.
10 l MR. CHO: It seems to me George ought to be able Il to do t. hat.
12 MR. OSTRACH: ' George, you have said the three !
13
/ or four sentences. Would you write them down.?
V) I Id MR. SEGE: Well, maybe I will copy them out of 15 the transcript.
16 Yes, Mr. Chairman, I could undertake that.
17 MR. OSTRACH: That's fine.
18 Section 4.4 --
19 DR. SPANGLER: Before we leave 4.3, I'm a little 20 bit curious as to how that parenthetical conclusion was i
. 21 developed. I 22 MR. OSTRACH: I believe there was discussion at the 23 last meeting to that effect.
i 24 DR. SPANGLER: There was?
3hi t conm. inc. .
25 MR. OSTRACH: I had thought there was.
136 ikgvid19 I MR. SEGE: It sort of petered out --
O 2 DR. SPANGLER:
V I Other members don't recall it.
3 l MR. COLLINS: I think it was brought up after the I 4 i fonal meeting. You know, we were laughing about the snow, l
l ,
5 this and that, the next thing, and we suggested maybe the
~
6 next meeting in Florida, just sort of very casual.
7 MR. SEGE: That's not quite correct. Tony Roisman 8
brought it up. I be.lieve somebody brought it up. I think 1
9 it was Tony -- I think it was Tony Roisman; I know someone I 10 I brought it up, and I think it was Tony Roisman who suggested l II that maybe people in other parts of the country who are 12 interested in this issue should be provided the sort of 13 opportunity that people who live or work in the Washington I4 i area have to participate in our meetings. '
15 And as I recall, it was discussed some, but the 16 discussion sort of petered out without reaching a conclusion. i 17 My purpose in putting it in parentheses he"e is to bring l I8 it to the group's attention so that if there is contrary feeling, I9
, we could reflect a contrary judgment in the report. ;
20 But if others on the committee feel the way I do, ;
21 considering the small number of participants that we have had !
1 22 l in the Washington area, the expectatiors that a significant 23
, input would be provided by the public if we held one or two j 24 p4ic. corms,Inc.
meetings somewhere else, were too small to make the travel '
j l 25 worthwhile. That was my thought. And that was why I wrote i I
l- !
i t
137 I
detrid20 I '
it on that basis.
2 MR. OSTRACH: Does anybody suggest a different f
i 3
way of presenting the matter to the Commission? I agree '
fully with George that we should raise it. We owe that 5
to Mr. Roisman at least, tcp raise the suggestion, but we i
6 should indicate a tentative opinion against it. l 7
DR. SPANGLER: I have a feeling there would be 1
8 some merit in perhaps having one or two meetings out of town, l 9
particularly at the sites that caused the most problems with i 10 regard to work under construction during adjudication.
11 I think there we would gne attendance from the ','
12 involved utilities, the working people whose jobs were ,
Q I3 Id affected, and environmeittal people.
And we would have the advantage also, I think, of 15 actually seeing the construction, the irrevocable changes i
16 in the environment that might be of some benefit to the group.
I7 Now, I don't want to press this if there's strong feeling 18 against it.
,I,
, I just want to go on record that I see some merit 20 i for a few selected worst cases, you might say, that we have ,
I 21
. agreed to study, be included as a possible meeting place. I
'- 22 MR. SEGE: Mr Chairman, I have no strong feelings 23
. against meeting someplace else. It's rather that I have no 24 rO val Rooorters, Inc. strong feeling that it would be worthwhile.. But if the group j
l 25 '
wishes, what I could do is to ask our office of state programs ;
i
y 138 I l Bavid21 to see if they could develop some feel as to whether public I 2
/]- participation would in fact be forthcoming to a meaningful 3l extent if we met, let's say, in Boston or in San Francisco j
4 or someplace.
5 MR. OSTRACH: Tulsa?
6 ;
MR. SEGE: Whatever. If the group wishes, I I 7
would call up Bob Ryan and see if I could get some sort of 8
a meeting, and then I would draft something based on that 9
feedback for the study group to consider at the next 1;aeting. I 10 I MR. OSTRACH: Well, for this time why don't we l leave it at that, then?
I2 Right now, tentatively, George will write it the 13
]
/
Id way he has it in section 4.3, but if he does get a response l from state programs that changes his opinion, write it the 15 other way.
i 16 '
We still have a chance to consider the question 17 further at the March 23rd meeting. ,
18 '
MR. IRELAND: Perhaps could it be considered on l9
, the basis of the assumption that all meetings will be held in 20 the Washington area unless there are specific requests from ,
21 some member of the public that a meeting be held elsewhere, i 22 that request coming along with some assurance that there will 23
, be sufficient participation by members of the public in A 24 pJgb n.oonm, inc.
that location that it would be worthwhile. :
5 MR. SEGE: I think that's better than what I 6
4
, 1 139 !
I david 22 suggested, i l
2
]s a DR. SPANGLER: Let me add one further thought to t
l 1
3 '
the thing; I think in terms of -- the kinds of meetings I l
d we've had so far, I see absolutely having no advantage to l 5
l i having these kinds of meetings anyplace bu t Washington. '
6 I think the kind of meetings that might be useful to have
~
7 is when our work gets far enough slong on case studies that 8
we get into these very case studies where the meeting would 9
be held. And I think that would have some -- you know, 10 !
if we are really trying to get some feedback from the l II public, that would be the one way we could do it.
12 I mean, state governments that may have intervened 13 (V3 or have interests, regional agencies, local governments, l i
I#
all of these kinds of things, you know, a participat.r can't 15 come to Washington.
16 And they might give us some interesting insights I7 and clues that might help our case studies, but only in the ,
18 context of case study work would I feel it would be useful
, to consider meeting out of town. ,
20 MR. OSTRACH: That's a very good suggestion, I l
21 think. Perhaps, George, an extra parenthetical phrase !
22 added to the sentence that says that we don't think -- something
!, 23 along the lines of unless the group, you know, may upon 24 '
L fN.i neoonm, inc. study of a specific case find that a visit to one of the case 25 studies would be helpful.
l, s
i 140 david 23 I MR. SEGE: Okhy, fine. I will develop an O '
>>r>>ri
- e.=* =c -
ead 12 3 l
4 5
6 7
8 -
l l l 10 1 !
I 11 l
I 12 l l
O .
i i 14 l l
l 15 ;
i
< 1 16 :
t 17 i
! i
, 18 i ;
19 i 20 ; i i
21 l
~ 22 23 p 24 Sv )e Reporters, Inc.
/ 25 I,
l
i 141 MMELTZER/mm
'cr3065 T13 I
MR. OSTRACH: We are on question 4.4.
1 O I have to meet further with the people from 3
Contracts to find out what we should do, what we are permitted l . to do in this area. And if I have the group's approval, I 5
can -- I will take the lead on this subject.
6 Could I have your views on the general suggestion 7
that we wish to ask the Commission their opinion on conducting 8
surveys, paying for analytical briefs, or even paying for 9
argumentative briefs. ,
10 I see three possible areas. When I say " analytical 11 briefs," I mean factual data, someone doing expenditure curves 12 or matters like that. Of furthest extreme would be paying 13 lh for purely argumentative participation.
14 MR. COLLINS: If we ask nongovernment employees to 15 go out and gather data f. . us, would they carry with them the '
l 16 I weight of this Committee, if you would, when they talk to various 17 people?
. 8 You know, there is something when you go out as a federal representative and ask for something, vis-a-vis just 20 an individual asking for this information.
- 2I How do you see this?
22 MR. OSTRACH: What do you mean, carry the tsight?
23
. We could certainly tell the Commission that we p %c 19neporws, Inc. are acking, soliciting data to be collected. '
25 l MR. COLLINS: If we give them a contract, do they
)
1, l
mm2 142
)
bscoma our agsnt?
2 MR. OSTRACH: If we are paying for it, yes.
.Q All right, then I propose to write it that way:
3 I
Ask the Commission their opinions on funding 1, 2, 3 and 3
provide -- for the second paragraph, for this 4.4, more or
, less a scenario that Contracts tells me we can get away with. -
7 The timing would be similar to what we said in the Federal 8
Register notice for this week's meeting, which is that we ,
1 9 would need the results of these studies not later than August 15th.
10 jj MR. COLLINS: Can anyone indicate to me where they 12 they think -- any specifics of where they think we need l 13 additional help?
g MR. CHO: Yes. It seems'to me -- l 15 MR. COLLINS: We have the whole Commission at our i
16 disposal right now, and we haven't asked anybody for any help !
17 yet. I don't see why we are addressing people outside the g Commission.
i 39 MR. CHO: It seems to me if you go up to the j l
20 Commission and ask the Commission these questions, you need 21 something fairly concrete as to what you have in mind and 22 why you think an outside group could do a better job than 23 we, in the agency, can.
24 And, unless you have that k"ind of information, I t3 '
my neoomn. inc.
25 don't think; one, we ought to be raising these questions, and; w
143 mm3 1 two, if we do, that we will get anywheres.
2 MR. COLLINS: I think it would be more appropriate
]}
3 if we just, under possible funding contributions, just 4 indicate to' the Commission that public groups have suggested 5 that they could contribute to this, and also requested 6 information regarding funding.
~
7 Until we can come up with something very specific, 8' I would have a tendency to low key this thing.
9 DR. SPANGLER: I have a feeling that this FR notice 10 that is going out is going to provoke quite a bit of response.
11 And they may be full of ideas of what to do, and somebody is 12 going to have to sift and sort through that.
MR. OSTRACH: I certainly agree. We don't want to
(]) 13 14 ask the Commission for funding until we have something we wish 15 to fund. ,
l 16 On the other hand, there is a chicken-and-egg 17 scenario here. We don't know what studies can be performed, ,
. 18 or that the public at large will be interested in performing l I
19 unless we indicate some receptivity to that subject. j 20 I do not want to -- I agree with your suggestion to 21 not highlight this issue. I don't think it is a major issue.
22 We have not found the need yet in a concrete sense to go outside
. 23 the resources of the Commission with the ex.ception, perhaps, n
ze nnaamn.w.
24 of a few suggestions I have heard as to Applicants' . ,
I.
25 thought processes, or Applicants' decision rationales or l
I
. _ ___ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - m._ _.
j 144 1 matters liko that.
1
/~T 2 What I suggest is a paragraph then, perhaps, instead 3 of two paragraphs one paragraph, indicating receptivity on b
i 4 the part of the group to proposals from.the outside,and 5 inquiring of the Commission whether if a proposal that we 6 believe is helpful is, in fact, submitted, whether the 7 Commission would approve funding of such a proposal. We need a to know that, otherwise we are leading people astray by 9 soliciting proposals.
10 MR. FRYE: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
11 I was trying to recall when the deadline for 12 submitting proposals was that was contained in the Federal
{} 13 Register notice.
14 Will that have run by the time the Interim Report 15 is sent out?
16 MR. SEGE: It is three weeks from date of publicatiod.
17 MR. FRYE: So that we may have some specific
. 18 proposals. Or, if we don't, we can say we don't have some i
19 specific proposals.
' l l
20 MR. OSTRACH: You are right. I am running up
. 21 against the difficulty of describing now what I will write.
22 But I won't be able to write it until we have further 23 information.
24 Can I get agreement from the group that I will make
> I Maoorters, Inc.
25 ,
my best effort to write something reasonable on this section (a
o
145 mm5 1 1 guided by our discussion today and modified by the results of
[} 2 whatever proposals we get in and circulate it to you before '
3 our next meeting?
)
4 MR. COLLINS: And we will have the privilege of 5 your discussions with contractors, too?
l
- l l .
6 MR. OSTRACH: Of course, which will be preceded l 7 by long apologies from me to the Contracting people.
l
- 8 MR. CHO: And if you receive nothing from the I
9 public, then it seems to me that all you can say is what Paul l
l 10 '
l has indicated, and really not much more.
i 11 MR. OSTRACH:
We received no interest from the 12 public, we have done what we can, I think, to get submissions 13 from the public.
(])
14 One point I do wish to make though, I have been l 15 told by Contracting that publication in the Federal Register i
. j 16 is not the way to get any sort of bids at all, and that I 17 publication in the --
. 18 DR. SPANGLER: Commerce Business Daily.
I i
19 MR. OSTRACH: -- Commerce Business Daily is.
20 I am asking permission from the group to publish
- 21 a document that -- based on what is in the Federal Register 22 notice -- that is acceptable to Contracting in that publication.
23 MR. COLLINS: After a discussion. of it?
24 MR. OSTRACH: This time I will circulate it to the i noorwn. im. I 25 group.
146 mm6 1 DR. SPANGLER: I am against the whole ider.
2 MR. PARLER: I am against that idea, at this time, 3 also.for the reasons that Paul has stated, perhaps in a 4 different context.
5 I don't think that we advertise things in the
'5 6 Commerce Daily until it is fairly clear that we have a need -
," 7 to be met.
l 8 Of course, at that point I suppose you will get 9 further guidance from the Division of Contracts on it. It I
10 is my understanding that what has gone on thus far is that we l'
11 have used the Federal Register technique for advising the 12 public of what we are doing and seeking the expressions of 13 public interest and public participation.
14 As a result of such publication the first 15 publication, a member of the public appeared before us and r i
16 made the suggestion which has led to the discussion that we 17 are talking about; funding of further public participation.
. 18 Now, that member of the public, as well as others 19 should realize that this Committee is interested in finding i i
20 out whether he or others have something specific in mind. It l
l
- - l 21 isn't entirely clear to me why at this point we should do more, 22 at least until we have seen the results of the Federal Register 4
23 notice that was dated February 22nd.
gs 24 MR. COLLINS: It is my understanding when you put i
% o cenonen, Inc.
25 something in this Commerce B tsiness Daily, it is pretty I
147 mm7 1 specific, so that companies or individuals can draw up a 2 proposal and give you the cost of it and scope it in, the 3 whole business. And then a group of people sit down and l 4 analyze it and get more information and so forth. It is not l
- 5. just a general statement, "we want some assistance."
l .
! 6 It is A, B, C, D.
~
7 MR. OSTRACH: Mr. Holman indicated to me that he 8 thought he could draw up a fairly general request, but I 9 haven't worked the de, tails out with him yet.
i
! 10 Certainly, perhaps you are correct, and to publish 11 something in the Commerce Daily requires more specificity than 12 we have.
13 DR. SPANGLER: I suggest our experience -- and we 14 have had quite a bit of it in our group with contracting j 15 studies -- that just the time cycle to go through the Holman l
16 route is so enormous and the managerial resources -- we 17 couldn't reassign it to somebody else, we would have to t
,. 18 manage that ourselves. And just the sheer mechanics of 1 '
i l, 19 designing a ccope, as Paul said, to be published,and then 20 establishing an independent review team which would go beyond
. 21 our group on the review part of it,and then negotiate -- and 22 to go sole source is very,very difficult.
I 23 You will find Holman and Company,will throw all 1 p 24 W Reconm, Inc.
sorts of curves at you on sole source requirements.
They -
25 are very sticky and difficult to deal with. RFPs are just .
I !
l i: !
148 mm8.
j mancgnrially complicated, l
! And I would like to put in a further note:
2 In my O memo of February 15th outlining the eight task items which I 3
4 read specifically this morning, on page five here, I said 5 in discussions -- in my discussions with several other members 6 of our group it was thought desirable to conduct these 7 specific kind of case studies as I have described, using 8 Staff resources rather than contract services.
I 9 That is utility type studies.
10 And maybe there are other kind of survey studies l 11 that people might do, but when it comes, I think,:to the
. 12 utility-oriented information, we have a familiarity of 13 dealing with these people and understand the complexities. And ja to bring a contractor up to speed on these complexities which 1 l
l 15 George fully recognizes are there, I think is just counter- j
! l' 16 productivey not an efficient way to run a railroad. !
I l So I would strongly advise at least in the areas 17 f
, 18 of these case studies, that we don't go that r6ute for that j 19 kind of study. (
20 MR. OSTRACH: The proposal then before us is Mr. Parler's, that we basically leave the matter with our 22 Federal Register notice and see what, if any, responses we i-
- 23 get to the Federal Register notice.
T13 24 .
reponen, Inc.
25 I
i
MELTZER:hwb 149
- 14 1 If that is tha concensus of the group --
r3 2 MR. SEGE: I wou.?.d add something to that, V
3 Mr. Chairman, if I may.
4 That is, that theCommerce Business Daily announce-Y 5 ment be prepared and circulated promptly after the expiration 6 date of the Federal Register Notice solicitation, so that we
~
7 would be prepared to go out with such a solicitation right 8 after we get any feedback from the Commission as to the 9 Commission's consideration that we should do something of that l
10 sort. i l
11 As Miller points out, it takes time to work out l
12 contracts; it takes time to get something circulated when there
(')
v 13 are schedule pressures. There usually is a way to work things 14 out with contract.' so that the schedule needs are met,.in spite 15 of the difficulties that often occur. ;
i 16 But it nevertheless would not hurt, in my view, to 17 do this staff work of preparing something for Commerce 18 Business Daily, recognizing that maybe the group's view at l i
t 19 that time is that it isn't worth loing. !
i 20 MR. CHO: I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, we will l
. 21 know enough at that point to write up a proper notice. But 22 beycr.d that, I am troubled by the second paragraph of this 23 proposal in 4.4.
s 24 It says, "The study group plans, if no Commission ,
e.(,,,b Recrun, im:. I 25 guidance is received." As I understand that paragraph, it says l
I i
i
m i
.1 ' O 1 wa chall go out and solicit proposals. It setma to me if so 2 Commission guidance is received, we ought not to do that.
3 We ought to go out for a proposal only if the Commission 4 says, "yes, the Commission is receptive to funding these Y* 5 types of studies." '
.A ' ,
l 6 MR. OSTRACH: I think, in any event, we are going l l
l' 7 to be presenting the interim report to an open Commission 8 meeting, and they will have some response t.'c that time and 9 we will clear that up. !
l 10 I believe that I am now tasked with responding to ;
l l 11 Question 4.4 -- Section 4.4, as follows. I will describe what 12 we have done so far in terms of publishing the various --
13 publishing particularly the notice in the February 22nd 14 Federal Register asking for bids -- for proposals.
l 15 I will report on whatever responses we have gotten.
l 16 I will separately work with Contracting to find out how we '
l l 17 can get what we want, and prepare a notice. ,
f l I l . 18 And I will mention that fact, that this work has l l l 19 been done with Contracting, whatever it leads to.
20 Those three things will then be in my draf t of the
. 21 Interim Report. We will send it to the Commission.
22 One fourth thing I will do that I don't think I have 23 to tall tha Commission, Contracting wants us to publish a s 24 change notice for our last Federal Register Notice having to ,
r%*J Recomn.25 inc.
do with all proposals submitted are the property of the I
, i l
e , - - ~ . ,
m .
i 151 l
l l
1 Fadaral Govarnmant, or coma langucga like that that they l
2 believe is necessary. But that is technical language.
l 3 Is that acceptable to you? That my draft of this 4 section of the Interim Report will describe our Federal l
) 5 Register notice, will describe the response to that Federal
!4 -
6 Register notice, and will describe the results of my work with J
7 Contracting on how we can get bids if the Commission wants us 1 8 to? >
t l 9 MR. COLLINS: And if we want to.
10 MR. OSTRACH: And if we want to, correct. But that 6 l
11 will be decided at our March 23rd meeting.
12 Now I am talking about what I am drafting for us I I
, 13 to look at on March 23rd. Is that acceptable to the group? I 14 MR. SEGE: Fine.
l l
15 MR. COLLINS: It is to me. ,
I 16 DR. SPANGLER: I think it would be fine, except I I I
i 17 have this further suggestion that what you describe should be I l
. 18 an appropriate appendix, with a very brief reference in 4.4 l l
19 in the Report to the appendix. l l
20 Well, you have one page allocated for it here. I
- l. 21 don't really see how you can do it in one page.
22 MR. OSTRACH: Let me try. If I can't -- but that's l, 23 a drafting detail.
i
{g MR. SEGE: Ilr. Chairman, if you need a volunteer for, gs,- w namnm. 24 irw. I I 25 4.5, 4.6 and 4.5, if nobody else volunteers, I will be glad to l
i
152 j .do co.
l I
g s, 2 MR. OSTRACH: I hear no other volunteers. Mr. Sege
\/
3 has volunteered to do those last three sections. I move we 4 vote our appreciation to Mr. Sege. Thank you, George.
5 (Laughter.)
A l 6 MR. OSTRACH: Are there any other matters dealing '
i 7 with the preparation of the Interim Report? l 8 MR. COLLINS: Yes. On 4.5 in particular, I am 9 wondering if we can't get some assistance out of MPA on this, I
10 so that we can get it on the machine, and everybody get a l 11 copy of the schedule when we update it, and it keeps coming 12 back to us once a month, once every two weeks, or what have 1 13 you, so we all realize we do have a timetable and.here's what ,
(~)N i
~
\
14 it is. This is'when you are supposed to deliver the goods; ,
15 rather than just seeing this one outline and trying to keep it ,
i 16 up to date by ourselves -- sort of a blut book schedule that l
17 I passed around today.
, 1
. 18 MR. OSTRACH: We will be having meetings every two ,
i s
19 weeks, at which I am sure Professor Milho111n will be nagging i 20 those of us who are laggard in our performance. Don't you !
, , 21 think that will be enough of a spur?
22 MR. CHO: We don't plan to have bi-weekly meetings
! =
23 throughout --
24 MR. OSTRACH: Perhaps not. I guess that matter 73 '
p(,)J' Remrtws, lrc l I 25 hasn't been discussed.
I i
153 ,
1 j MR. COLLINS: Wh;n wn wara on monthly meatings, 2 we felt'it was necessary to go bi-weekly until the Interim
, \_J
('T\
3 Report was out.
4 MR. CHO: That is what I understand.
i 5 IE. OSTRACH: I suggest we leave that up to
-t 6 Professor Milhollin as to what method he thinks is necessary 1
7 to task ourselves with performance.
8 He will be reading this transcript very carefully, 1
and I call this to his attention, 9 j i
10 One thing I do want to mention: If there are any ! l 11 questions, I have no authority. I am just sitting in for l 12 Gary today. He is not feeling well today, but he will be r 13 available on Monday at home.
e "T
\~j 14 If anyone has any questions, I will be glad to try l 15 to answer them, but only Gary -- Gary is the Chairman.
Please l 16 call him up and ask, if there are any ambiguities in task 17 assignments, or unresolved questions.
, 18 I think Professor Milhollin is the appropriate 19 Person to direct you questions to next week.
20 11R. FRYE: May I ask one question as a point of
, 21 clarification? To whom do we send our various inputs? Will 22 you be putting together the draft Interim Report?
l*
23 MR. OSTRACH: I think we should send them to 24 Professor Milhollin. Send a copy to me. But for record-keeping heinanm,inc.
25 Purposes, nothing else.
l l i
154 1 I think tho working -- Gary's intention is for 2 him to get the various things and put them together.
3 MR. PRYE: And I suppose he would need to have 4 them --
5 MR. OSTRACH: He would need to have them fairly
-1 6 soon.
7 On the other hand, I don't know if it would be 8 possible for us to send material to him, have him work it 9 up and get it back to us in time to allow us to consider it i
10 before the meeting on the 23rd. '
i 11 If it wouldn't be too difficult, why docsn't I
l .4' 12 everyone, at the same time they send it to Professor Milhollin, 13 circalate your drafts to the entire group.
1/ MR. IRELAND: We will carbon-copy everybody?
15 MR. OSTRACH: Yes. But be aware that after you I
i 16 get the Frye draft from Frye, you will get the Frye draft l 17 rewritten from.Milhollin, which I think will probably be the 18' subject for discussion at our next meeting. l 19 All right, then, thank you very much. I will l 20 adjourn the meeting until next Friday, the 23rd.
]
, 21 (Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, 22 to reconvene on Friday, March 23, 1979.)
cnd #14 I * *
- 23 p 24 , e p d Reporters, Inc.
I 25
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _