ML20196K476
| ML20196K476 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/31/1979 |
| From: | NRC - ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION DURING ADJUDICATIO |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACCA, NUDOCS 9903260367 | |
| Download: ML20196K476 (63) | |
Text
_ . _ . . . . _ _ . . _ . . .-.. _ . _ _ ___
f., )
ORG10.l_
i
.j lO MUCLEAR ltEGULATORY COMMIS$10N I i
1 l
1
. . . _ _ . . . . . . - . . . . . ~ . , . . . ..
I l
l4 IN THE MATTER OF:
I '
l ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR PO*4ER PLANT CONSTRUCTION DURING ADJUDICATION l
N
- Place - Silver Spring, Maryland l D a t e- - Friday, August 31, 1979 Pages 1 - 62 l
9903260367 790831 telephone:
PDR 10CFR PT9.7 (20st 347 3700 PDR l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,LNC.
p OfficialReporters , e b
'U "
l 44J. North Capitd Street Washington, D.C.20001 d - *g .'
[CjC21 ,
NATICHWIDE.COVERACE. DAILY
'^
e'
,,,1 , *c'A#, '* ,y*
. -g ~ -
.Q ?l** .
4 L. _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ . _ - - }
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'J NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION 4
DURING ADJUDICATIO'.
6 Room 415
., 4350 East-West 131ghway 7 Silver Spring, Maryland 8
Friday, August 31, 1979 9
The Advisory Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 11:00 a.m.
11 PRESENT:
12 DR. GARY MILHOLLIN, Chairman MR. BRUCE BERSON
- 3 MR. JOHN FRYE MP. KARL KNIEL j4 MR. BILL LOVELACE MR. DARRELL NASH 15 MR. TED QUAY MR. STEVE OSTRACH 16 MR. GEORGE SEGE 17 18 20
\
21 M
22 i
23 eral Reporters, I .
25 !
i
2 i I
! /~', 6743 1
-PROCEED
- - - - - - _I._N.G _S -
j ole-1 2 MR. MILHOLLIN: The meeting will now resume. It's i
3 time to discuss designs fer projects now underway. I know 4 you are all looking forward to discussing that subject.
!* 5 MR. QUAY: Overwhelming fan reaction.
6 MR. MILHOLLIN: It seems to me we have to get the 7 writing portion of this report done. By writing portion, I 8 mean the write-ups of the information we have been seeking 9
by the end of September, in o5cder for us to bring things, t
10 together in October, which means that the write-ups of the l
Il cases and the results of the various studies that we are 12 carrying on, should be done by the end of September at the O 13 latest. Would everyone agreewith that?
Id -
MR. SEGE: Yes.
15 MR. QUAY: When you say results, are you going to 16 the options?
17 MR. MILHOLLIN: I am not talking about the options.
18 I am talking about having the information written t'p. We havo I'
got it in usable form so that in October we can draw it together!.
20 I'm mostly talking about writing up the advantages and 21 disadvantages of the various options as part of the information 22 we gather; is that your question?
1 23
- MR. QUAY; No. Each case was to be written up; b 24
- hoo.r i neoorws, Inc.
right?
25 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
- i. -
3
'~
l MR. QUAY: Then there was an option portion. I 2
presume you are talking about total completion of the case.
3 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
4 MR. OSTRACH: You mean the application of options
- 5 to the case?
6 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
~
7 MR. OSTRACH: That was the thing I was supposed to 8 do.
9 MR. MILHOLLIN: Now that you've brought that up, it 10 seems that that might be done a little earlier than the end II of September, for the individual cases.
I2 How does that strike you; that's reasonable, isn't
(\
' 13 it? Say September 15th for that? For the application of,the Id options to the case write-ups? Does that sound agreeable?
15 MR. OSTRACH: The entire case write-ups then?
10 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, the entire case write-ups I7 including the application of the options to the case by the 18 15th of September.
I9 MR. FRYE: The persons who were writing up the 20 case would then apply the options?
21 MR. MILHOLLIN: Right.
22 That would include integisting the cost flow data with the narrative portion of the write-up.
Q 24 j 3,,,, ,,,
MR. QUAY: A separate section.
MR. KNIEL: The outline is a separate section.
I
4
'3 1 MR. MILHOLLIN: And the outline is a separate section (G .
2 MR. QUAY: Yes, essentially it has got four parts 3
to it.
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: I am talking abouu the case
- 5 write-ups.
6
, MR. SEGE: Mr. Chairman, here's the standard outline 7
for case write-ups.
8 MR. MILHOLLIN: Thank you. Yes, it's Item 5 in the 9 analysis. Is that what you're referring to?
10 MR. QUAY: No, funding flow was Item 4.
II MR. MILHOLLIN: Oh, the funding flow is Item 4.
I2 MR. QUAY: Expenditures and utility versus summary IT U I3 equipment response, questionnaires, charts and so forth.
Id MR. OSTRACH: What do you mean by integrate I guess 15 is the question?
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Perhaps that's going to be II done in the analysis section, isn't it?
18 MR. STRACH: Yes.
MR. MILHOLLIN: You couldn't make the analysis 20 without integrating the funding flow with the legal part; could 21 you?
22 MR. OSTRACH: Not the analysis.
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: All right. Sorry about that.
l 24 l A keral Reporters, Inc. Okay, so September 15tn for write-ups of individual 25 cases.
l
! 5 p"'; 1 The other outstanding work projects are the V
2 conclusions from charts on stays. That's pretty much 3 finished. And I take it, John, you won't have any problem l
l 4 meeting, say September 15th for your conclusions?
- 5 MR. FRYE: No.
6 MR. MILHOLLIN: The other outstanding work project, s
7 one of the other ones is accelerated treatment option. Can l
8 you make September 15th on that one?
l 9 MR. KNIEL: Yes. I think we have to do it by then.
10 MR. MILHOLLIN: If we are going to consider it as 11 an option that we can then develop if we decide to adopt it, 12 I.think we would have to have it in usable form by then. On ,
O
\_) 13 the outline of work assignments, that item is listed, and I 14 have listed Myron Karmen to help the two of you with the l 15 licensing part of that option. So, he could help you with the 16 questions about when is it appealed and so forth. Could the 17 licensing board act on it early since he's not here? I am sure 18 that he can't object to being assigned to that task. Does 19 that seem reasonable to you, Bruce? At your office, since 20 after all you work with the staff on licensing schedules. You 21 should be able to do that.
22 MR. BERSON: Yes.
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. _
24 A minor part of clarificatio's, I assume, ;
MR. QUAY: I erd Reornn, tu.
I 25 on the 15th you're expecting completion of these and distribution l
1 l -
6 v i s-5 1 of these to other committee members by those responsible?
- 2 MR. MILHOLLIN
- Yes.
3 MR. QUAY: Okay. So, they're not coming to any 4 focal point. We're distributing them ourselves to the rest of
-
- the committee.
5 6 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, because some of them might be 7 finished earlier, and that might be helpful. As soon as you 8 get them finished, distribute them to the other members of the i ,
9 group.
f 10 MR. OSTRACH: Could a copy be sent to Chase stevens t 11 to put in the record?
i
- 12 MR. QUAY
- I don't know. These are drafts.
1
]' 13 MR. SEGE: Yes, I want to raise that. I think that
- 14 is something that we ought to consider carefully, just what
' ~
15 we sent for the public record as we have of working drafts. It i 16 can get awfully confusing if they have several successive
, 17 partial drafts of things in the records. We could just send i j j ,1,
, 18 everything to the record or we could send to the public record 4 i.
(f 19 drafts at some predetermined status. It is going to be a very
)
20 cluttered public file if we just send all sorts of partial 21 drafts.
22 MR. OSTRACH: Another alternative is we could simply 23 let the Chairman decide as he gets documerts what he wants to Recomn,give Inc. out and what he doesn't want to give nut.
24 f~
Ev)ederm 25 MR. MILHOLLIN: What about legal restrictions on our i
7 i
,ri 1 power to decide what to put in the file?
( )p-6 'l I
2 MR. OSTRACH: You've got me. l 3 MR. MILHOLLIN: What does the Sunshine Act say about 4 that?
e 5 MR. OSTRACH: The Advisory Comm!', tee Act, I don't i i
6 know. I don't think that it requires us to keep every scrap of s
7 paper that we generate or we look at for the file. I assume i
8 we can be fairly reasonable about it. I 9 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
l 10 MR. OSTRACH: The reason I suggest that you do it I I
11 wasn't an effort to dodge work load. You could look at things
]
12 and somebody has to make a judgment. I'd rather it not be me,
() 13 since I don't have any authority. If it isn't you, it will be 14 me. ,
15 MR. MILHOLLIN:
Okay, I'll do that.
l 16 MR. OSTRACH: Every now and then you could give me a l
17 package of stuff and say, "Give it to Chase," and we'll put it i 1
.; 18 together.
t 19 MR. MILEOLLIN: All right.
J 20 MR. QUAY: Working drafts don't necessarily have to 21 be part of the,public domain, do they? ,
22 MR. OSTRACH: I don't know.
23 MR. QUAY: I don't see why they would or should. !
24 f~) MR. OSTRACH: I don't believe ACRS is working u.r. non.r., in .
25 documents --
8
-7 1 MR. QUAY: Unless you're looking for public comment 2 on them. We've already got public comment, 3 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. The other outstanding work 4 assignments are pretty much Bill Lovelace's delays, cash flows
-5 and proceedings other than direct review.
t 6 Bill, do you think you could get the information on 7 delays and cash flow at least ready by September 15th in a 8 form that can be used by the rest of us?
9 MR. LOVELACE: I can try.
10 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. I take it you would not be 11 able to do that with proceedings other than direct review 12 probably. I am talking now about Ireland's stuff.
13 MR. LOVELACEt It's only nine days to the 15th --
14 nine work days.
15 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes. Well, again it is kind of hard 16 for me to see how we can use them unless we get it fairly 17 early. Do you think.you'll need longer than that to put that 18 together? If you do, say so.
19 MR. LOVELACE: To be perfectly honest, I have no 20 idea what's involved. In the one case we looked at -- I have 21 no idea how many cases are involved.
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Why don't we put that aside.
23 How about the other two? Delays and cash flow.
2' f' l.o.r. n.ponen, inc.
tm MR. LOVELACE: The other two I think we could 25 probably do by the 15th.
h 10
9 s -- 8 j MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Now, have I left anyone out 2 in terms of special work assignments?
3 (No response.)
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: I guess not. I don't hear anyone 5 speaking out. So, any comments on that?
6 (No response.)
~
7 We can move ahead, then.
g An outline of -- Well, before we go through my 1
9 outline, perhaps I should ask you for comments on the 10- memorandum which I distributed to you. This is the -- it just q 11 says memorandum at the top. What I propose is to send this 12 to the supervisor of every person on the committee so that
. () 13 supervisors will know that the committee is in need of a certain 14 - number of days per week between now and the time when our report 15 is due. There are only a couple of -- Well, first of all, any l 16 comments on this in general?
4 l
17 (No response.)
4 18 I will call supervisors before I send it to them to e
19 let them know it's coming. I am trying to be somewhat polite
~
20 about it.
21 (Laughter. )
22 I will need some more information before I send the 23 memo out. I will need to know the name and mail stop of the 24 supervisor to whom I should send it.
(~}
L< ederd Reporters, Inc.
Some.of us, if you look at 25 the organization chart, you can -- it is sort of arbitrary which
^10 l
l c-9 ; supervisor or where in the hierarchy decide where the supervisor 2
is. For others, it is pretty obvious.
i 3 MR. QUAY: I'll pass this sheet around.
l 4 MR. MILHOLLIN: If you just pass this sheet around l -
3 you can all just put the name that I should write to and the 6 address.
7 The other thing that I'll need to know is how many a of these to put in the bracket here. Maybe we can decide that
~
9 after we go through the work assignment outline that I 10 distributed. You can estimate how many days per week it will l 11 take,cor we can just decide on a group number of days or I could 12 arbitrarily just put a number in there. Those are the 13 alternatives which are presented. Maybe it would be bet.er 14 for us to put that off until we go through the work assignments.
15 But that is something that you might think about as we're going 16 through.
17 You all have a copy of the draft work assignments?
18 I'll tell you how this is done.
a 19 With George's help I took three documents to make 20 this document from. I took George's outline. This is keyed t
21 to the general outline of a final report which George and Steve 22 circulated. I also took the statement of options in the 23 interim report and I took the Secretary's April 5 memo and I 24 developed George and Steve's outlines so that I tried to get A el Reporters, Inc.
25 everything in there which I felt we should cover, and then to l
11 7 cle i make work assignments for those items.
O 2 Now, putting th'is forward as a basis for discussion, 1
3 both as to the assignments of personnel and as to the place 4 where different items are included. So, I would like to have
, 5 your advice on whether you think, for example, the various 6 items are properly assigned to the right place, whether they are 7 assigned to the right person.
8 We can just start with Item 1 and go through the 9 outline.
I 10 Do you have a copy of George and Steve's outline? l 11 That was on 6/20/79. Does anyone not have a copy of the 12 outline of the final report?
() 13 Everybody have a copy? Okay. {
l 14 Steve Ostrach ~and George Sege received the *
. 15 assignment for Items 1.1 to 1.6. That consists of about ten I 16 pages of description of the background of the Kemeney, the 17 history of the problem and so forth. It also includes a 18- stctement of what the scope of the study is, what approach we 19 vill use. It also includes a statement of conclusions and
. 20 recommendations. '
21 I thought that probably Steve could do Items 1.1 and 22 1.6, and George can do items 1.2 through 1.5. But since the i 23 whole thing is assigned to both of them, they can decide among 24 themselves which parts they would prefer to do. Is that hww amnen,inc.
25 agreeable?
? l 12 l
e s-11 ) MR. FEJE It's agreeable to me.
l i
2 MR. MILHOLLIN: How do you fe , Steve, is that i 3 agreeable to you?
I 4 MR. OSTRACH: It's quite agreeable to me.
- 5 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
6 MR. OSTRACH: With the one exception. With respect 7 to 1.6, since that's also discussed,1.6 is going to be based l 8 upon, I assume, 2.3. Yes, 2.3. When we. talk about 2.3, I'll i 9 speak about that.
10 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes. This was just the description 11 of what we did to give public participation.
12 MR. OSTRACH: Oh, I am sorry. Then there is no
() 13 problem.
14 MR. MILHOLLIN: We did X, Y and Z in order to get 15 public participation.
16 Item 2 is the information base, and according to the 17 work assignments, Myron Karmen has the lead on this with help l
18 from Bruce Berson, John Frye ard Bill Lovelace. This item Iw 19 .would include --
l 20 KR. FRYE: All of 2', or just 2.l?
l 21 MR. MILHOLLIN: All of 2.
22 Oh, excuse me. No, just 2.1. It's just 2.1.
End t-1 23 sin a n.oor=n, '
25 l
l
5743 02 01 13 MM mte i Now, under " Survey of Cases," I have put charts on 2 both stays, appeals and so forth. These charts would be 3 John Frye's charts a Bruce Berson's charts, with the 4 conclusions from the charts. Also, information on delays in 5 licensing could go in here because the information Bill has 6 relates to a broad number, a large number of cases. And we 7 have -- well, Bill has information on what happened in a lot
- 8 of different cases, cash flow and when they did_this, that 9 and the other thing.
10 It occurred to me that that could go in here under J1 " Survey of Cases," but it could also go elsewhere. So I 12 just put tha t in there for discussion purposes. It's part 13 of our Information base. If we don't put it there, where do !
14 we put it?
{} 15 16 Under the other items, George has indicated there
. doesn't seem to be a place for it. Maybe George would like I 17 to respond to that? Were you thinking, in " Survey of 18 Cases," to include, for example, in X number of cases no 19 action occurred for six months af ter the Cp was granted?
20 MR. SEGE Yes, I thought that the most direct 21 . highlight. information gleanings from the survey would be 22 presented here.
l I
- 23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. l 24 'MR. OSTRACH: My favorite case in connection with '
25 the example Gary gave of having a Cp and yet nothing being l
e j
6743 02 02 14 MMLmte 1 done is Sterling, where they had a CP for over a year and 2 haven't turned a shovelful of earth yet.
3 MR. LOVELACE: Tyrone, also. '
4 MR. OSTRACH: But Tyrone, the state was pre tty 5 clearly leaning on them not to go ahead with the project.
~
6 Sterling, as. f ar as I know, they presumably could go ahead 7 tomo rrow.
8 MR. NASH: No, th e Sta t e o f New York --
9 MR. OSTRACH: Oh, th.e same situation? The s, tate 10 won't let them go?
J1 MR. NASH: Essentially. And they have known that 12 . for a few months. An ywa y, that's the way the state was 13 leaning.
14 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, Bill can tell us for a large 15 number of casas what happened af ter this milestone point.
16 So it occurred to me that that would be a good place to put 17 it in, since that goes along with the charts and everything 18 else, or could, at least.
19 The second item, I tem 2.2, would be the writeups 20 of our detailed casa studies. And of course, everybody 21 would do that, and I would try to draw them together insofar 22 as is necassary.. This would include a statement of what 23 .aff ect. would have been produced in the case by the options 1 24 tha.t would go in the writeups. .
^
=
25 As the outllne says, af ter we get that done, we A
N- ,,.
t E 4'O f
5743 02 03 15 MM mte I might transf er that portion -- or we could use that portion 2 of the writeup to discuss the alternatives in Item 3. Now 3 is the time for comments on placement or logic of this.
4 Then Item 2.3 would be summary of responses to the 5 published questionnaire. This is assigned to Steve 6 Ostrach. Steve, you wi'.1 be delighted to know that this has 7 already been done by Ted Quay.
8 MR. OSTRACH: That was just what I was going to !
l 9 say. That's what I was speaking about before, that I am '
10 always willing to accept an assignment to something that's
.1 1 - already been done by somebody else.
12 MR. QUAY: It's not quite done, but for the most 13 part. At least we ought to change the name up there. i 14 MR. MILHOLLIN: All right, we'll change that to
("T
\J i 15 __Ied Quay, with the understanding that he could ask for help 16 from you if he needs it.
17 MR . QUAY: That's the way to do yourself in, isn't :
1 18 it?
19 (Laughte r. ) I 20 MR. MILHOLLIN: Item 2.4 is workshop, and I'm not 21 sure what George had in mind by workshop. I've gone through (
22 the transcripts carefully and tried to make a reading, 23 reading notes to myself which I'll complete, so that I can 24 put together a statement of what points were made in the l l
25 discussion, wlth a certain. amount of additional work. That s
4 J
.. . ~. '. \
..( ' '
~~. s, .. ,
am
]
6743 02 04 16 L- -MM mte i raadlng is a basis for the. document I passed out, which is
\/ 2 entitled "Some Tentative ' Conclusions."
3 ..I noticed that I had all these reading notes and I 4 Just thought it would be useful for me to jot down my 5 conclusions that I came to, which seem to be tentatively 6 correct, after I finished.my reading notes.
7 MR. QUAY: There are other things in there.
8 MR. MILHOLLIN: There are other things in here 9 which have nothing to do with the workshop, that's right.
- 10 That's not just the workshop, that's right. Some of.these J1 conclusions occurred to me af ter .I interviewed appeal board 12 members and licensing board members, for example. ;
13 I might say that I -- I'm circulating these 14 principally to stimulate discussion. I think so.me of them O 15 are probably wrong or at least overstated, and certainly a 16 good many of them might be cualified by additional 17 informatlon. But I just sent them out because I think it 18 might be not too early to sem if we can Jot down some l 19 tantative conclusions.
20 Anyone who wants .to supplement this with l l 21 additional tentative concluslons should do so. Just tack i .
22 them on the end and circulate them to everybody else, and ,
23 .we'll see .whether cther people agree with them or not. It ;
l 24 might be a good way of finding out what things we .can agree '
^
25 upon with too. much difficulty.
I i i 1
L0 . .
i s
pQ b e- - - - - -
.._ .~ . _ _ _ __ _
6743 02 05 17 MM mte 1 MR. SEGE: Gary, your writeup is intended a s
() 2 tentative conclusions?
- 3' MR.. MILHOLLIN
- Of my own.
4 MR. SEGE: Yes, as a first input.
5- MR. MILHOLLIN: I'm not suggesting these are good 6 conclusions.
7 MR. SEGE: .It's a first input to the board's 8 formulating conclusions of the Advisory Committse. This is 9 not a w r.iteup on what emerged from the workshop.
10 MR. MILHOLLIN: No, it is-not a writeup on what
.! ! emerged from the workshop.
12 MR. SEGE: But it suggests a general format that 13 you would use in describing the outcome of the workshop.-
14 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, a possible format would be to O( / 15 llst the. things upon which people could gene. rally agree, 16 things upon which it seemed the preponderance of opinion was 17 in a certain direction, and.then a list of things in which 18 there was just flat disagreement, for example, and it would 19 follow that format.
20 L encourage you to add to this list things which
+ 21 flatly contradict the conclusions which I come to as 22 tentative or othar conclusions which have nothing to do with 23 .this. I haven't put all the conclusions down which I might 24 have, just because I ran out of time. So I'm not tendering 25 this as a group document. This is just my o'en --
A G) .
- +
M Y
6743 02 06 13 4
MM mte 1 MR. FRYE Food for thought.
O
% /- 2 MR. MILHOLLIN: Food for thought, that's right.
3 Which brings us to my Item 2.5, which is not on 4 George's outilne. This would be interviews, summary of the 5 interviews with the Commissioners, members of the appeal 6 board and the licensing board panels. I think I'can put 7 that .together, because it's practically done now and it 8 would just be a matter of editing and organizing'it into a 9 section of the report, which I think I could do.
10 MR. BERSON: Myron asked me to mention that he
.11 interviewed appeal board member Farrar and had sent to him a 12 copy of his understanding of what transpired, and has yet to 13 receive his formal concurrence yet.
14 MR . MILHOLLIN: Has it been a while?
(- .
15 MR. BERSON:
August 14th, I believe, it was sent 16 to Mr. Farrar.
17 MR. FRYE Since you've had no comments, he 18 probably ought to. call him. Lf he had no comments, he may 19 not have realized he ought to get it back. '
20 MR.. OSTRACH: Gary, your 2.5 is in addition to the 21 2.5 in the outline, which is other inputs?
22 MR. QUAYr f think he's defining those other !
23 inputs.
24 MR. SEGE: That then becomeg,,2.6.
25 MR. OSTRACH: So there ls an addition.
eg .
. - ~ ~ . . - - .- . . - . _ .- - .-. . . . .. - .
l
- 6743 02 07 19 L MM nte 1 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, an additional section on l
( )- 2 interviews, and then 2.6 would be other kinds of information 3 which we may have gathered, and that could be a l
4 l misce.11aneous category, which will remain unassigned for the l 5 moment.
6 MR. OSTRACH: Can you think of anything that f alls 7 Into that category?
8 MR. MILHOLLIN: Group discussions, discussions 9 among ourselves, literature?
10 MR. QUAY: Do you know what sort of reports we l l l .11 looked at?
l 12 MR. MILHOLLIN: Other studies which may be 1.3 relevant,. which might not fit under any of those categories?
! 14 MR. SEGE: Statements of members of the puolic at
() 15 our meetings.
16 MR. MILHOLLIN Ah , ye s . We should probably have 17 a separate section in the information base for that.
18 MR. OSTRACH: There haven't been an aw.ful lot of
. 19 them. We do discuss public participation. That might 20 conceivably be a subpart of responses to the questionnaire.
21 You can change the title to that to "public Input" or l 22 something like _ that, " Citizen Input,a and then add it in 1 1 .
23 there, j
24 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. If there's other !
25 miscellaneous input by the public, we could put it in other
- O .
o 4'
6743 02 08 20 MM mte 1 inputs.
(')
%- 2 MR. OSTRACH: Yes.
3 MR. QUAY: Cagey, isn't he? l 4 (Laughter.)
5 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay, Item 3. 3.1. This would be 6 an attempt to state in general form the criteria according 7 to which the option should be evaluated. I guass I'm on S record as being rather pessimistic about the use of decision 9 criteria, but neverthel.ess George and I have decided to do 10 our best here to formulate something.
.11 Would anyone like to be included on that who has l l
12 been:.lef t out?
13 (No response.)
14 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Item 3 --
kl 15 MR. OSTRACH: Gary, I would be will.ing to be. If 16 you'd want to talk to me about it, I'd be interested in 17 talking about that.
18 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. That would be good. So -
1 19 we'll put you down. This would be short, of course.
l 20 Item 3.2 would also be fairly short. That would i
~
21 be an introduction to the other items which would follow, 1 22 and it would just state which items we considered. And 23 George and I can do that by simply lif ting sections out of
,, 24 the interim report and th,e secretary's memo.
25 MR. SEGE: Plus options that arose after that.
i h'
i
^
=
l 9
_ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ .-._. . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . . m . _ _. __.-.. _ - _
!6743 02 09 21 MM mte 1
- MR . = MI LHOLLIN - plus other options.
'( ) 2 MR. SEGE: Like the option of deciding '
3 effectiveness by litigation. '
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: Or accelerated treatment of .
5 e ff ectivenass-related . issues would be another option we'd 6 have.
7 MR. SEGE: Yes.
8 MR. OSTRACH: Or the Rosenthal option.
9 .MR. MILHOLLIN: Or the Rosenthal option, although 10 that might f all under. 3.4.
.11 MR. FRYEs I think that already f alls under an I 12 option. I 13 MR. MILHOLLIN: That would f all under 3.4, I would q
14- guess. l i(:)
15 Okay, 3.3 is a descript, ion of the present -- that 16 would be the first of our treatments of the substantive 17 options, and I assigned that one to Steve tentatively. This 18 section would describe the advantages and disadvantages of 19 retaining the present system. That's option number one.
20 What: I've done is to make a suggestion of an 21 outline for the way these options could be written up. This 22 ts just a suggestion. It's a suggestion which George and I 23 came up with. ;
24 For each of these options, it could be introduced 25 by a background which would explain. 1 guess perhaps here t
LO' Eh s .
- b 9
id w.
- ed a w
, - - n . .,- _ . . - - e . , . - -., - ,
i6743 02 10 22 MM'mte I it wouldn't be nece ssary, _ but it could explain what the
, ) 2 option is so someone could understand what it is that's 3 being discussed.
4 Second, you could list the advantages and list the 5 disadvantages with a "howeverd across the page if the re's a
~*
6 significant qualification to the advantage or disadvantage.
7 MR. OSTRACH: You say across the page.
. I view S this as a straightf orward. narrative writing task. . You know, 9 af ter two paragraphs of advantages, there would be a third '
10 paragraph that would begin something like, "However, it must 11 be recognized that the extent of these advantages is 12 qualified somewhat insof ar as" --
13 MR. MILHOLLIN: dell, I was just. thinking of -- I 14 wasn't thinking anything dif.ferent in substance. I once saw O 15 a rather effective presentation of canons of interpretation 4
16 in whi.ch, down one side of the page it had one set of canons 17 and down the other side it had. another set of canons which i
18 contradicted the set of canons on the left-hand side of the 19 page, so that for each- princlple you could see its 20 limitation on the same line lf you looked across the page. l
- l 21 So where you list a certain advantage for the l 22_ rules, if there's a qualification to the advantage or the 23 _ advantage is based on information which is questionaole, you 24 could look right across the page,and see what the 25 limitatlon would be. Or if the disadvantage -- i 4
.)
, , f' ~
I
'5743 02 .Il 23 14M mte ! MR. OSTRACH: My problem with that is, I'm n).
(_ 2 thinking about the appearance of the report, and it sounds i 3 typographica lly inelegant.
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: I don't think it's an important --
5 itf s not a crucial point.
l 6 MR. OSTRACH: It's not crucial at this point, 1
\ -
7 axcept Insof ar as we're talking right now about, you know, 8 writing modules that are going to be put directly into the 9 report. This is a draft of a section of the report, right?
10 MR . MI LHO LLIN : That's right.
11 MR. OSTRACH: Oka y.
12 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, I suppose we could leave it 13 up to the individual who's writing the item up to come up 14 with an outilne or a format of presentation which seems most 15 effective.
16 MR. OSTRACH: Not for 3.3, not for these, because 17 we're considering different options. They should have the 18 same format.
19 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. I was going to suggest, if 20 we could look at all the formats and pick the best one or 21 something, make everybody else's conform.
22 MR. OSTRACH: Certainly we can discuss this . We 23 don't have to discuss it today extensively at a meeting. !
24 MR. MILHOLLIN*. All right. ,
25 MR. QUAY We need some sort of guidance, oecause l 26 2 1 4
I l
/
6743 02 12 24 MM mte ! peopis are going to start writing them.
&)
(_ 2 MR. OSTRACH: That's true. My view, then, is that 3 I like narratives.
4 MR. LOVELACE: We are meeting next week.
5 MR. MILHOLLIN: We have advantages and
. 6 disadvantage s. You would just prefer to put all the 7 advantages, plus their qualifications. in a narrative block?
8 MR. OSTRACH: In a straight text.
9 MR. SEGE: One possible compromise would be to 10 list the advantages as numbered items, but not try to be -
.11 tabular beyond that. So if there is an advantage which is 12 described, and then that advantage has some qualification to '
13 it, then in t7e same numbered paragraph there could be an 14 additional sentence or clause that says, "However, this
() 15 advantage is limited to cases in which such and such occurs."
16
. 17 MR. OSTRACH: In other words, advantages
- one, 18 speeds up things, blah-blahl but, disadvantages qualifyt 19 then, two, to the .next advantage t something like that?
20 MR. SEGE: Yes. It speeds up things, but not if
. 21 such and'such is the case.
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: So you're suggesting really just 23' putting the "however" under rather than across from?
24 MR. SEGE: Yes, where there is a "however." or 25 the "however" may be -- may in some cases be be.tter T
('_/ - . "
. . j 1
z ~
6743 02 13 25 MM mtc 1 statable as an integral part of the statement of the 2 advantage.
3 MR. MILHOLLIN: There may be no "howevers" in some 4 Cases.
5 MR. SEGE: Like within -- within certaln ranges of 6 case conditions, some may apply, and the '4 howe ver" and the 7 limitations may be woven into the sentence structure of the 8 . advantage. In other cases it may be easier to have a rv/ 9 "however" sentenca af ter an assertion is made.
/ 10 Any way, the authors have greatsr flexibility to
.V 11 choose the specific language that is most in keeping with 12 What they want to say.
13 14
(~~ ,
15
.16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 24 -
< l 25 l l
t i
N' s
~._ _ - . - _ _ - . - - -_.
l 6743.03.1 26 t gsh 1 MR. SEGE: But we would sti.11 have each item of
()':m 2 advantage and each item of advantage and each item of 3 disadvantage numbered to help organize discrete advantages 4 and discrete dis. advantages in easily recognizable packets.
5 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Then item D with spec ial 6 notes, which sho.uld just be a catch-all category for remarks 7 Which might not fit into the above categories.
8 Item 3.4 is delay and ineffectiveness options .
9 MR. SEGE: Maybe it might b; in order to say a 10 little more about the special notes, particularly when we J 1' deal with options which are complex in the sense that they 12 involve a number of sub-options, where it's ne ce ssary to 13 have notes about one or more or all of the sub-options that 14 would qualify what is said about the group of options in n'
s-15 general.
16 This could be the place for it and the special notes !
17 in turn could have some sub-headings that could deal with 18 the various sub-options. Depending on how complex the option i 19 is and how many parts it is, the special notes cculd be ,
20 brief or long.
21 MR. MILHOLLIN2 They might also be things you might ,
t 22 want to sar about all the options. They might have a common 23 element you might want to discuss at some po. int.
24 MR SEGEs Yes.
25 MR. MILHOLLIN2 And that would be useful to discuss in i
i V - g . .
'* 9. . . , ~ .
. , 4 . .
9 4 L
p 6743.03.2 27 gsh 1 the spec.ial notes or background. I'm thinking about the next rn 2 one, about 3.4, in which Bill's ;erial on delays, or the 3 impact of a delay, would probably be useful as a general 4 item there because it would apply more or less to each 5 period of delay which is proposed by the various options.
6 Do you follow that statement?
8 MR. MILHOLLIN: Because under this option, nere 9 it's necessary to. refer to the interim report. And under 10 Option 2 of the interim rcport, we have all the options J1 start.ing with X-number days for staying and going up for 12 more and mere days, 60 days, or going up to the appeal board 13 to decide the merits and the appeal board decides the days.
14 All of .those periods would have, it seems to me,
( 15 the common f actor of knowing what the ef fect on the applicant 16 or the construction would be of having this delay.
17 MR. FRYE In other words, listing each estimated 18 period of delay beside each option?
19 MR. MILHOLLIN Yes. I guess for some of the options 20 where you'd say.dalay until the appeal board decides a stay --
- 21 you/d hsve to say, wall, this is going to be X-emount of 22 time.
23 MR. FRYE2 In most cases, it would be so much time.
24 .
=
MR.. MILHOLLIN: Or until the appeal board decides the 25 merits, it's probably going to be 6 months or 8 montns. And 4
._ _ . . _ . __ . ~ . _ _ . _. _
6743.03,3 26 gsh I then you could use the background material Bill has to
()'m 2 predict what eff ect the.:e different periods wot Id have on 3 the appilcant or on the plan.
4 That's just a thought for the organization of 5 that matsrial.
- 6 Do you have the interim report? . I you ref er to 7 Option 2, that's on pages 4 and 5 of the interim report.
9 That's on page 5, I think.
9 MR . FRYE Yes, I think it's on the bottom of page 10 4 and goes over to page 5.
.11 MR. MILHOLLIN8 That's just going to include 12 different periods of time. I guess you could include Alan 13 Rosenthal's option in there, couldn't you, as a sub-option 14 there?
() 15 MR. FRYE: Yes.
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: You'll notice that I've added another 17 option there which is like Rosenthal's , only it would be --
18 it expands his option to also include the option of 19 postponing for a fixed period long enough to glve them 20 ordinarily time to decide the merits, 7 months.
. 21 I added that after our interview.
22 CO MMLSSIONER AHEARNE: I think he would be 23 interested in knowing what. would happen lf you didn't have 1 i
24 effectiveness for a period long enough to give the process a i 25 chance to finish. -
l l
~
.a .
M'
- t 4
6743.03.4 29 gsh 1 MR. FRYE 'This, in a sense, would place a time
.m 2 limit.
3 MR . MILHOLLIN : Place a time limit , yes.
4 MR. FRYE On the proces: in the appeal ocard.
5 MR. QUAY: And the commissioners.
6 MR. FRYE We should certainly -- if we're going to 7 certainly consider putting that in I think we ought to talk 8 to Alan Rosenthal about this.
9 MR. MILHOLLIN: The reason I put it in is because it 10 seems to me that there's going to be a fair amount of support
.11 for that kind of a solution on the commission and they're 12 going to want to know wnat the effect of that would be.
13 So maybe it. would be a good idea to talk to A1. And 14 the reason I picked 7 months, John, is because the two O 15 , appeal board members I interviewed said .in a normal case, 16 they could handle an appeal on the merits in 6 months.
17 That's what they do now. So that's the genesis of 18 .my flgure of 7 months.
19 Now maybe that doesn't accord with other appeal 20 board members, the interviews of other appeal board members.
21 L don't know. But both said 6 months.
22 But neither of those were lawyers. Maybe the 23 . lawyers.see it' differently.
~
24 MR. 0STRACH: I believe Mr. Saltzman said 6 months =.
25 as wall.
C:) . . . ,
g
- a
-. . - - _ - - - . _ - . = _ - - .. - . . - -- - - - - ._
l-6743.03.5 30 l
l gsh 1 MR. MILHOLLIN: Saltzman said 6 months? -
1
() m 2 MR. OSTRACH: I believe so. I'll check my interview i 3 notes, but I believe he said 6 months.
4 MR. FRYE 6 months is reasonable. That's about 1
5 what the y do . J 6 MR. MILHOLLIN: Again, I really think the i
7 commissioners will be disappointed if we didn't tell them what 8 the eff ect would be if the citing weren't going to have 9 e ffectiveness for 6 months.
10 That's my sense. Do you agree. Steve?
.11 MR. OSTRACH: Yes.
12 MR. QUAY 2 You're just talking about appeal board J 13 now, aren't you?
14 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, and probably -- l
'( 15 MRe- QUAY: You'd have to take on whatever -- i 16 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, if you read over on the next f 17 page, I did. I tacked on another period for the commission.
18 I think they're going to want to know that.
- 19 John, do you hat e any questions or protests at 20 this time, or Bill?
. 21 MR FRYE2 Well, I guess my questions really focus 22 on the fixed period. I mean, will this be, say, a 7-month i
23 . delay, regardless of when the appeal board acted? ,
24 MR. MILHOLLIN: I guess you would have to say no, 25 it would be --- could be shorter than 7, I suppose. !
e9
't i ,
l
,. ,- % i
_ ~.
y
- a, u .
- V *
+. ,
1
6743.03.6 31
- sh 1-MR. FRYE: 7 months, or until the appeal board
.m 2 acts?
3 MR . MI LHOLLIN 8 Yes, until the acpeal board acts.
4 MR. FRYE8 And would there be any provision for
- 5 them to extend that period Lf they thought it should be 6 extended?
7 MR. MILHOLLIN: That's a good question. I don't 8 Know. Why don't you ask Alan what he thinks about that.
9 We could propose that that could be legislated. But you would 10 expect that there would be some limit -- that gets into the
.11 merits of the thing, I suppose, because the utilities would 12 probably want to know what the outside limit is.
13 MR. FRYE Yes.
14 MR, MILHOLLIN: And that would facilitate their O
k/ 15 planning considerably.
16 MR. SEGE: I would. think that this sub-issue would oe 17 worth discussing in connectlon with this sub-option in our 18 report.
I9 MR MILHOLLIN: Okay.
20 So sub-option under that. would be I guess just 21 a question --- should there be -- should. the appeal board ce 22 allowed to extend this tine?
23 MR. SEGE8 And on what standards should sucn a 24 decisiog.be based? .
25 I. think if you just ask should the appeal ocard be
'O "4
._ ._ __ ~. . _ . _ - - - . __. _. . ~ _ ._ _
6743,03.7 32 gsh I able to extend the time, the answer would be yes because at
( ) vn 2 the very least, if the strict stay standards are met, the 3 time would be extended.
4 But the question is 5hould the appeal board be 5 able to extend the time on standards less strict than the 6 Virginia Petroleum jobber stay standards?
7 MR. MILHOLLIN: John, I guess that we could leave it 8 up to you.
9 MK. FRYE I'd like to think about it a while.
10 Frankly, George raises a good point.
.11 MR. MILHOLLIN: It also would be possible to give i
12 them a second period in which they could extend it for a 13 month more, but not more than that. l 14 I don't know. There are different possibilities.
(} 15 MR. FRYE: I think they had probably tended to look I 16 on the possibility that the immediate effectiveness rule 17 might be repealed as placing .them on the critical path, and !
18 therefore, putting pressure on them to get their decisions 19 out earlier than they currently come out.
20 So,. yes+ 1 think it raises a lot of points that you
. 21 may pursue with the appeal board.
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. The next item is Item 3.5, 23 selective effectivene ss. And this -- I guess that you have 24 had a chance to read this -- includes option 3 from the 25 interim report, except for a couple of parts which snould be 7
d, ~.
- . = .
4
'^
.?i -
1 -
y-
)
I
'6743.03.6 33 l gsh !
moved to the option of making eff ectiveness an additional
)m 2. issue in licensing.
3 I This is assigned to Myron Carmine and Ted Clay. l 4 Also Option 5, also parts of option 4 and Option 5.
l 5 Questions about this? 4 l
6 MR. OSTRACH: Do I assume that largely reflects the i i
7 panel of. the workshop that I was on this option? l 8 MR. MILHOLLIN: By that, what do you mean?
9 MR. OSTRACH: I'm sorry .this selected effectiveness. l 10 This is the . workshop panel that I was on?
.! ! MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
12 Steve can be a " resource person" for you, since he 13 has experience in this matter.
14 Item 3.6 is pretty much devoted to stays. As you
( 15 can see, it. would be stays in alternate appellate procedures.
16 That's 3.4 on the outline of. the final report. And that 17 ref ers to Options 6 and 7 of the Interim report to alter 18 stay standards in various ways. And that goes to Jonn and l 19 Joe.
l 20 I guess John doesn't object since I haven't heard 1
21 anything from him. 1 22 Steve, I assigned sub-option C of Option 7 to you. I
\
23 Now this has to do with the . mechanism to monitor the 24 proceedings of lower boards.
25 MR. OSTRACH: Go ahead. f l
r~T i V
4 9
l
$743.03.9 34 l gsh 1 MR. MILHOLLIN: It will take that one away f rom l
.m 2 John and give it to you. If that's agreeable.
l 3 MR. OSTRACH2 Definitely.
- 4 MR. MILHOLLIN: Otherwise, John would have the 5 issues relating to certification of preferred rulings, and :
6 also possibly just changing the stay standards.
7 Conments on that?
8 MR. OSTRACH: Excuse me. You said otherwise John 9 would have --- you mean John does have.
~
10 MR . MILHO LL IN: John does have. The issue of Just
.1 1 - changing the stay standards and the issue of changing the 12 methods .for Interlocutory review.
13 I assume that John will need some help witn the
,s 14 data from the charts. I assume he can call on you, Bruce, 15 for, help on it?
16 MR. BERSONt Yes.
17 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Item 3.7 is proceedings other 18 than direct review. And this one is one which has been 19 languishing with not too much attention so f ar.
20 So I just didn't know what exactly to do with that.
21 I tried to think of. someone who would be closest to it and 22 who cou ld do it fastest. So I thought of Steve.
23 But that's a v.ery tentative selection.
24 I throw that open for discussion, generally. How do 25 You all f eel about that?
I i
l
(")\
\_ ' _
4 O$ ,
- t. ,
- + ,
5743.03.10 35
. gsh 1 MR. OSTRACH: I'd rather that Bill had the lead, but b
N' im 2 I'd be glad to work with him.
3 MR. MILHOLLIN: Let me ask you this: Since the 4
posture in which these come up -- no, that's not a good way 5 to say it.
6 Would it be fair to say that the questions here 7 really are principa.11y legal questions?
8 Before you answer that, let me say something else.
9 It might be possible to get this assigned to some other 10 lawyer, either in ELD or in the genersi counsel's office, 11 since this is a package which is f airly independent f rom 12 other. things . And somebody could just be given this and 13 asked to do a paper on it.
14 What do you think about just assigning this to C. 15 lawyer X in the . agency to work on with help from Bill?
16 MR. OSTRACH: I'm not sure that all of the proceedings 17 other than direct . review that we are interested in are 18 primarily legal.
19 MR . LOVELACE : I would think that they would be 20 safety-related.
21 MR. OSTRACH: I was thinking about something like 22 Diablo Canyon, or something like that, the earthquak e f ault 23 discovered or the announcement of an LNG terminal close by.
24 . .MR. MILHOLLIN2 But what you do about them is a 25 legal question, isn't it?
9 4
w a
5743.03.JI 36 gsh 1 MR. OSTRACH2 I suppose.
m 2 .MR. MILHOLLIN: How the system processes that 3 information when all of a sudden, out of the blue, you 4 find out *he staff made a hypothetical site review. But you 5 find out that there's going to be airplanes going over the 6 site, or you find out that the process of dewatering is going 7 to be changed.
8 How should the system process that new information?
9 MR. OSTRACH2 Would you have in mind a hypothetical 10 analysis or do you have in mind an examination of what's
.11 happened?
12 MR. LOVELACE: Actual cases.
13 MR. OSTRACH: See, it it's actual cases, then it 14 isn't so mething a lawyer's going to be very helpful on.
) 15 If it's a hypothetical, what procedures could deal with one I l
16 dis cov e ry of new safety information. l 17 The way George originally broke it down --
18 MR. LOVELACE: We have so many more coming out now, j 19 too, you have this anchor bolt problem in both operating 20 reactors and reactors under construction.
. 21 MR MILHOLLIN: I take it the commission is asking l 1
22 us whether --- to tell them whether to suspend the activities 23 of the applicant when this information is discovered. i l
24 Isn't that what the commission is asking us to 25 recommend? That's the only thing that seems to fit into our O
I b
e
6743.03.12 37 gsh- I study, isn't it?
p i NJ e 2 What do we do while we're processing this new 3 information? Do we suspend.them, or what do we do?
4 MR. OSTRACH: The present regimen, of course, is 5
that the director of NRR decades if he discovers the 6 information on hLs own, or if somebody on the outside 7 raises it through a 2206 petition --
8 MR. LOVELACE , or either the director o f I&5.
9 MR. OSTRACH: I guess the director of I&E, yes.
10 And the question is -- do we want to change the procedural
.11 s ys tem whe re by, _first, the director would have to decide to 12 suspend. construction? And if he does, then the licensee can 13 . challenge that and get a hearing. And if he doesn't, there 14 is a limited form of commission review of his 15 denial. ---
16 That's the existing system. Do we. think that we 17 want to reconmand a change in that?
i 18 MR.. MILHOLLIN It seems to me that that's what ;
I 19 they're asking.
20 MR_ OSTRACH: That's a legal question. But it's a j 21 legal question that is at best informed by a discussion of 22 what we've got, what has happened, what the data base is.
23 Now if Bill could give me a fairly summary 24 write-up, then that's the point that it would be summary 25 because the details aren't too important. What's important are l
4 9 V *'
- F S
, e' 9 9 s
.~
6743.03.1.3 38 l gsh I good examples of a couple of different kinds of these
() .m 2 s itua t io ns . I guess then a lawyer could take that and 3 discuss the existing system and, you know, possible 4 alternatives to it.
, 5 It's a real issue. I don't want -- if our asslgnment 6 1s construction during adjudication, I guess that's true.
7 It's constructlon during adjudication and not adjudication 8 during construction.
9 MR. MILHOLLIN: I'm coming around to the point 10 where I'm thinking maybe we ought to just put in a paragraph
.11 on .this and say look, we can't -- it's collateral to what
)
12 we're doing and it's really another study and we can't 13 proce ss. this.
14 MR. OSTRACH2 What it is, I gue ss, and I hope that 15 I'm not just playing word games, but it's a question of 16 adjudication during constructioni namely, what happens during construction if somebody wants to start an adjudication, 17 i l
18 It's, in a way,. almost a reverse of the problem )
19 that we're dealing with now where there's 'adjudicatlon and l 20 the question is, can they do construction?
l 21 Maybe the best thing to do is to summarize the '
22 problems that have arisen, discuss how they're handled now, 23 point out that it raises different issues because it does.
24 It deals with the person who, has a bona fide license from 25 the United States Government to build a plant and is doing l *- ,
.o 3. f-
[ .,
y n
m
~< ,
6743.03.14 39
. gsh I that and people start wo rrying about maybe he shouldn't.
.m 2 That's not the same thlng as whether somebody who 3 doesn't have a bona fide license, or at least a fully 4 final bona fide license.
5 MR. FRYEs It's much more than that because it 6 exists from the time any kind of license is issued until the 7 time the plant is decommissioned.
8 MR. OSTRACH: Yes. It ties into operation.
9 MR . QUAY : Why do you want to analyze it. Why not 10 a statement to say that this study is limited to --
11 MR. MILHOLLIN: I.mproper management practices or 12 improper control.
13 MR. FRYE Or somebody builds an LNO terminal next 14 to an operating reactor.
A k-) - 15 MR. OSTRACH: I guass now that I think about it, 16 it's a far greater problem for un operating plant. It's the 17 same logical problem for an operat.ing plant as for a plant 18 under construction. And most of the time, it's a greater 19 safety problem.
20 The. worst that can happen if somebody continues 21 constructing while we're worrying about an issue is that ,
22 theY'll end up being -- whereas, if they're operating while l 23 they're worrying about it, they may cause an accident.
]
24 MR . MI LHOLLIN: Do you.think that you and Bill could
~
25 take the transcript of this meeting and our thoughts and put N
O . .
~
~
W n "
,6743.03.15 40 gsh ! them into a paragraph?
}
i
().m 2 MR. OSTRACH: paragraph? No. '
3 MR. SEGE: I think more than one paragraph would 4- be needed. .
5 MR . OSTRACH: I think we're talking about a two page
- - 6 section up to the report where Bill could come up with a 7 couple of what he. thinks are the best examples, or a good S range of exa.mples. Say here's the types of things that we're' 9 talking about. Here's the way that they're handled by the 10 system now.
.11 We think that this is an even greater problem than 12 the case of operating licenses. Then construction permits.
13 It may be a. subject that the commission might want to have 14 a further -- give further consideration to, but we believe it 15 f airly clearly f alls, outside the real kernel of what we were 16 assigned to do and then maybe pick that up again in the I
17 recommendations. If the group as a whole wants to make us 18 a recommendation, the other-than-direct review question 19 should be f urther. studied.
20 You know, make a lot of recommendations. And.one 4 21' of them might be for further study of this Lssue.
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. i 23 MR. LOVELACE: There's such a wide range of cases.
24 MR. OSTRACH: Yes, that's the problem. Bill can come 25 up with a number of cases and we can sit around and speculate !
I L
cs
, \_) !
- 1 i
- N s
'M M
sk
6743.03.16 41 i 1
. gsh I about all sorts of other ones, too.
.am 2 MR MILHOLLIN: We aren't going to be able to do the 3 work whleh would be required to make a responslble 4 recommendation for handling this category.
5 MR. OSTRACH: And we can make a legitimate case.
6 That isn't what we were assigned to do.
{
, 7 Does that sound okay?
I 8 MR . LOVELACE : Oka y. I'll go along. !
9 MR. OSTRACH: If you can give me the list of a good ;
l 10 range of examples that you and Ireland have du'g up, then we
.11 can get together some day and work on writing the pages.
12 MR. LOVELACE : I have a question. Would you consider 13 partial stays since I think -- similar to the proceeding at 14 Marble HlL11 b,-n 15 MR. OSTRACH: I'm not talking about cases _ where 16 . stays have been granted. That's the point. I'm talking about !
(T 17 good examples of. things -- and it might be that the problem 18 was n't there . But good examples to describe what the range 19 of problems would be, a hypothetical, an identified 3
- 20. hypothetical would be just as good if it could happen, if it i 21 presents the same sort of issue. You know, like change 22 _Diablo Canyon about some more.
23 Say they discovered the faults earlier on when they 24 were hot into construction.
25 o 4
.. .;;~ .
l 4
+ 94 4 $4
l l
l 42 l
. 6743 1 MR. MILHOLLIN: St. Lucie would be an obvious slb-1 2 example.
l 3 MR. OSTRACH: St. Lucie would be an example if they 4 had -- Well, if the Appeal Board had been -- had caught on and o 5 it had later surfaced that they had done an entirely --
6 MR. MILHOLLIN: Would you be able to provide some 7 examples?
8 MR. LOVELACE: A short one.
9 MR. MILHOLLIN: Would Midland provide an example?
10 MR. FRYE: Midland?
11 MR. QUAY: Problem resulted in an order to show 12 cause issue by the staff simultaneously with the issue of the (O _) 13 staff order to stop work. No more work.
14 MR. LOVELACE: Calloway?
15 MR. OSTRACH: Calloway did the same thing.
16 MR. LOVELACE: Marble Hill?
17 MR. FRYE: Just a few months before -- a few 18 weeks before the Three Mile Island thing Harold Denton shut 19 down a number of reactors; did he not?
20 You know, for the seismic problem.
21 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes. The code, the computer code.
w.
22 MR. FRYE: There may or there may not be problems 23 with the legal system for dealing with this. I don't know.
24 But I would consider a statement that is outside the scope.
w2 Repofwn, W.
25 MR. OSTRACH: Did they shut down Marble Hill?
l
! 43 I
,c.le-2
- 1 MR. LOVELACE: On all safety related work because
(_) 2 of the concrete. Same way with Wolfe Creek.
3 MR. OSTRACH: They stopped that one, too?
4 MR. LOVELACE: Yes.
)
5 MR. FRYE:
, The Director has the power to do this 6 and he does it. -
j 7 MR. LOVELACE: And it's getting more so, too, and a 8 lot of them were because of allegations.
9 MR. MILHOLLIN: Item 3.7-1, which'is not in George's 10
-- before we go on there, are there any other remarks there II about any other options?
12 We finally get to Darrell Nash and Karl Kniel.
() 13 You must have been feeling terribly left out up until now.
14 MR. OSTRACH: Gary?
15 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
16 MR. OSTRACH: Why do you note the 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3 17 at least as apparently as subs of 7? ,
I8 MR. MILHOLLIN: I don't intend it as subs of 7.
s I9 Excuse me.
. 20 MR. OSTRACH: Maybe they should be 8, 9 --O 2I MR. MILHOLLIN: Then we have to change 3.8 to be 22 3.11.
23' MR. SEGE: Perhaps 3.7 could be changed. These 24 deal with options. 3.7-1 and so on, they deal with options.
et Reporters, Inc.
25 '
The 3.7 should perhaps come at the end of the option. So,
'~ _ U.~ 2 ' ...._.J '
l 44 l l
l slo-3 j 3.7 and 3.8 could both be renumbered to come at the end.
) 2 MR. OSTRACH: So, make 3.7-1 3.7; 3.7-2 would be 3 3.87 4 MR. MILHOLLIN: Wait a minute. We already have a 5 3.7. So, 3.7-1 --
6 MR. OSTRACH: 3.7 is going to be moved. That's 7 George's point.
8 MR. SEGE: I'm suggesting 3.7 and 3.8 of the present 9 outline be renumbered to come at the end of Section 3.
10 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
11 MR. SEGE: And they may become 3.10 or 3.11.
12 MR. MILHOLLIN: So, we have 3.7, which would be
{} 13 Darrell Nash and Karl Kniel with Myron Karmen. And then we 'll 14 go ahead and renumber them all. 3.2-2 is 3.8; 3.7-3 is 3.9.
15 MR. OSTRACH: Then the old 3.7 is now 3.10.
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: 3.10, which is old 3.7.
17 MR. SEGE: And then 3.8 becomes 3.11.
18 MR. MILHOLLIN: And 3.11 is old 3.8, not assigned.
19 MR. QUAY: What 6:es 3.8 mean anyway?
, 20 MR. MILHOLLIN: Why don't we postpone that until we 21 talk about the others fi;st.
22 Any comment on 3.77 23 MR. KNIEL: It's the same work, essentially, that 24 you mentioned before.-
! nei n cone, ine. .
- 25 MR. MILHOLLIN
- Yes, it's the same . This is the 4
L ? l 4
45 c-4 1 place where it goes in the report.
2 MR. QUAY: It would just be due earlier.
i 3 MR. MILHOLLIN: I have noted my thoughts about this 4 here. This is not meant to be an exclusive. This is just l
- So, you are free to put in any other suboptions 5 my thoughts.
6 or do whatever you like here, depending on what you find out.
7 MR. SEGE: Can anyone think of a three-word name for 8 this option / like accelerated treatment of effective disrelated 9 issues abridged to three words or less? Silence reigns supreme.
10 MR. QUAY: Why do you need it in three words?
11 MR. MILHOLLIN: How about preemptive issues?
12 MR. OSTRACH: Preclusive is a word I've seen before, j 13 but that's not really what we are talking about. It's not 14 preclusive issues here, it's issues that may be affected by 15 ongoing construction. Issues that may be affected by ongoing 16 construction include preclusive issues the way Rosenthal broke 17 them down, both go, no go issues. And also, they stand of 18 redwoods issues, which aren't exactly go, no go, but they are 19 affected by the early stages of construction. In other words, 20 the early stages of construction can distort whether or not you 21 are going to build the plant there, and can also irreparably 22 change the environment.
l l
23 MR. SEGE: Maybe accelerated treatment of 1
24 h.owsn.po,=..inc. effectiveness related issues is about as brief as we can be v.- ,
25 without being cryptic. ,
I
... ; - , /
1
?~
46 .
I ls-5 j MR. BERSON: Critical issues?
2 MR. OSTRACH: It's not critical, and it has these 3 two entirely separate categories, the sort of issues that go 4 to whether or not you can build the plant there, and issues 5 that in the ultimate sense are unimportant maybe, but that are 6 crucially dependent upon what happens in the first stages of 1
7 construction. l 8 MR. MILHOLLIN: They would 'end t to disappear.
9 MR. OSTRACH: If the first thing they are going to 10 do is build a barge landing, and there's a big issue about 1
11 these clambeds there, or a particular archeological site, 12 then that -- you know, after a week of construction, that issue
() 13 vanishes from the case, when they could have built the barge 14 landing -- there is no question they could build the barge 15 landing someplace. So, this isn't an issue that is crucial to 16 whether or not you build the plant. And they are completely 17 different categories of issues that you want to be put on fast 18 track, I guess. Well, you could have them on separate tracks.
19 So, accelerated treatment of effectiveness related issues. I 20 don't know about that. What's the matter with what we have here, 21 George?~ You don't like my words?
22 MR. SEGE: That's fine. It's a fairly long title.
23 MR. OSTRACH: There's always an acronym.
24 (Laughter.)
A W Reoruts, lm.
25 MR. SEGE: Well, there's no question about its I
47 sic-6 clarity. Maybe one two-line subheading in a report like ours f 1 2 would be quite forgiveable.
3 MR. OSTRACH: ATERI, Accelerated Treatment of 4 ' Effectiveness Related Issues. ATERI, that's not bad. It has 5 got vowels'La the right places.
~6 MR. MILHOLLIN: The report would have to begin 7 with-the definition of terms, and all the acronyms could.be 8 defined.
.9 MR. OSTRACH: When we were drawing up this study 10 group, on writing the chart I spent a considerable amount of 11 time trying to come up with a name for this croup that made a 12 decent acronym and I couldn't come up with him. Nobody has
() -13 been able to come up with one. That is probably why it has 14 really never taken off -- no catchy title.
15 MR. MILHOLLIN: I don't associate myself with that 16 last remark.
17 (Laughter. )
18 Item 3.8 is the item we have all talked about and 19 which came up in~our shop. This is assigned to John Frye who 20 is getting loaded up. I thought John Cho an'd I could help him 21 on that. If you look at my draft that I passed out, there's a 22 section in that at the end toward the back of it which on 23 Pages 3 and 4, which I tried to list what I' thought were the C 24 principal subissues which.had to do with making effectiveness l is)were neoonen, inc.
25 an additional issue in licensing. Again, that's just food for i
=
40 i sis-7 thought.
j I tried to sum up the various remarks which had E ) been made about that option and list them. '
2 3 MR. QUAY: That came out of your panel; right 4 John?
... 5 MR. FRYE: That came out cf my panel and Steve 's '
6 panel. Both of them.
7 MR. OSTRACH: My group is very enthusiastic about 8 that.
9 MR. NASH: With regard to making it a part of the 10 record?
11 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
12 MR. NASH: What about making it an issue in the
() 13 proceedings?
l 14 MR. OSTRACH: Yes. I think it has been awhile back, 1
15 but as I recall there was considerable support'for having a 16 party having to show -- make a case on whether or not the 17 decision should be immediately effective. The argument was 18 that in the regulations as written now, the licensing board 9
19 is making that finding. I mean it says that it's effective, i 20 .unless the board finds otherwise. So, in effect, every CP 21 decision the board is making its' finding, there is no good 22 reason not to be effective, and they might as well have a 23 little more of a hearing on that.
24 MR. MILHOLLIN: John, the reason I gave this to you ww namnus. trw. ,
! 25 is because it's principally a licensing board function, and I I i
t ~. l
-.1
i
! 49 s-8 1 think a lot of the things we have to know about it would be 2 things that licensing board members could tell us, and you 3 have the best access to them.
4 So, I know that's an addition to an already heavy
. 5 load. If I can think of somebody else who could do it, I 6 wouldn't give it to you. But I can't think of anybody else who 7 is in a position as good as you are. The only thing that I can 8 do is promise some help from Cho and myself. Maybe Cho can 9 help us with the question about what the Appeal Board would need 10 to know or could most usefully use by way of a record of the 11 licensing board level.
12 MR. MILHOLLIN: The last item -- the next to the
() 13 last item is Item 3.9. Ted Quay and I are going to do a little 14 snooping around to see if we can find out something about 15 utility planning and the extent to which these costs can be 16 avoided. This will be just by way of helping out Bill with his 17 work. I don't know whether Bill has the information on utility 18 planning in the house that he would need to handle that one.
19 MR. LOVELACE: Only discussions with various applicants 20 at the site.
21 MR. MILHOLLIN: All right. We will add you there.
4 22 We will discuss with you any kind of conclusions we come up l
23 with. We probably won't get any further than discussions with i
24 various people.
m i n.pon m .inc. -
25 Item 4.1, I have assigned to George Sege. I notice e
i
! 50 slo-9 1 that I previously assigned this to Steve Ostrach. Perhaps l
2 Steve and George could do this together. This would just 3
consist of a description of a connection with what we're doing 4 with other studies in legislation and so forth to show the
. 5 commissioners that we are aware that other things are going 6 on,.and so forth.
7 MR. OSTRACH: Yesterday in the discussions with 8 the commissioners it was pointed out to us that one study that
~
9 they have some effect on our recommendations is the Kemeney {
10 Study, and this was done in the context of urging us to get our 11 report out before the Kemeney report, because otherwise it will 12 be expected that we will address in some detail the conclusions
()' 13 of the Kemeney group and take account of them, whereas if we 14 can beat them out, we can not properly be held responsible for 15 not addressing the conclusions. That's sort of an incentive 16 to actually meeting our November 1st deadlines.
17 MR. SEGE: What is the expected date of the Kemeney 18 report?
19 MR. OSTRACH: November 1st, and they are very ' serious 20 about meeting that.
21 MR. MILHOLLIN: I just heard this morning it was 22 October 25th.
23 MR. OSTRACH: They are going to go public October i 24 25th?
w e neoon es,Inc.
25 MR. MILHOLLIN: That's simply what I heard. I don't s
s*
e
51
! sis-10 1 know.
2 MR. SEGE: Yes. A late October date sticks in my 3 mind.
I 4 MR. KNIEL: Why do you think the Kemeney report is
. 5 going to have input that would affect us?
6 MR. OSTRACH: Because we are going to make -- they 7 feel their charter gives them freedom to make recom:uendations l
8 without the Commission's licensing process , and it's quite l 9 possible they'll recommend abolition of licensing board or 10 abolition of the appeal board or converting the commission from 11 a commission to a single-headed agency. All sorts of 12 recommendations like that.
,() 13 MR. KNIEL: But how can we address questions of that 14 general scope in this limited study?
l i 15 MR. OSTRACH: It depends on the recommendation. If 16 they say abolish the Appeal Board, just to pick one, that is 17 something that we would have to -- early on we decided that we 18 wouldn't address that because we could assume we had no other 19 proposal really to consider. But if they had a specific 20 proposal, we'd have to spend some time considering it.
21 MR. FRYE: Steve, have you been following at all in 22 what they would be interested in by way of questioni!4g 23 commission people?
24 MR. OSTRACH: Some -- most of their interest -- well, wo noomn. lw.
l 25 they are divided into a number of groups. We followed some of '
I
- . - . . - =_- .-
52 i
('p-11 1 the goups. Of most interest to us, I guess, would be they V
2 have a special group working on commission organization, 3 corrmission structure. It hasn't really extensively looked into 4 the licensing structure, that sort of structure. It's looked
- 5 in terms in the breakdown amongst the organizations and the 6 commission hierarchy itself, the commissioners. I have no idea 7 what their. tentative conclusions are. Maybe some people in our 8 office who follow them more closely have some idea about where 9 they a re heading'.
10 MR. FRYE: The reason I asked is I had no indication II until just recently of any interest on their part and any the 12 adjudicatory boards.
I3 MR. OSTRACH: As I said, they are interested in Id I think i is focused more on the commissioners, structure.
15 whether there should be five-man licensing boards or something l'
like that.
I7 MR. MILHOLLIN: It could very well be that our 18 report is going to be so specific both in its data and its I'
recommendations that it won't be affected a great deal by what
- 20 they come up with;-it's possible.
21 The best way to ensure that is to MR. OSTRACH:
22 get out before them.
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Of course, I date -- if they have a late October date, then they're scheduled to come out before f we are, but if we meet our deadline, perhaps the c. mmission will <
l l
53 i
I l
o-12 1 not be able to both react to that report and ask us for 2 additional information at the same time.
3 MR. OSTRACH: Furthermore, at the same time as an 4 institution we expire on November 1st, anyway.
- 5 MR. MILHOLLIN: We do?
6 MR. OSTRACH: I think that's right.
7 MR. MILHOLLIN: And we have no jurisdiction to do 8 anything after that date.
s 9 MR. FRYE: I think our charter is six months or a 10 little longer; nine months, 11 MR. OSTRACH: Nine months from our first meeting, 12 the first week in February, February 2nd.
() 13 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, I suppose the next question is, 14 when do we propose to do these write-ups that we have just -- ;
. 15 MR. OSTRACH: Excuse me, Gary. We didn't talk about I i
16 Item 3.G,' applications of findings.
End t-4 17 l 18 I P
19 ,
20 i
21 l w.
22 1
1 23 f
e._.__ .
25
%+
l
'6743 05 01 54
! - MM mte i I assume that we can -- I guess my assumption is 2 that one can be held in abeyance, at least personnel 3 assignments, until we get the raw material of our decision i l
4 written up so we can uce it.
1 5 MR. OSTRACH: But that application of findings !
^
6 comes -af ter we have decided what our recommendation is, that 7 sort of implementation of recommendations section . !
8 MR. SEGE: I was thinking of something else on 9 application of findings in this sec tion. The conclusions 10 and recommendations and when they would be applied is
!! some thing else. But rather, these various options could be i 12 appliec to cps, they could be applied to LWAs or to both or 13 to LWA I's and II's; and some discussion of how germane 14 particular options are to one or another stage, I thought, O 15 might be appropriate in connection with discussion of the lo alternatives. I 17 We have not really addressed that question. We l 18 have talk,ed primarily in terms of cps. But some discussion i 19 here would be appropriate. But I still -- I would still 20 view it as reasonable to delay starting on this until the 21 discussion of the options has been written up, and then it i 22 could be assigned to someone to do it on a f air fast 23 turn-around basis.
24 L think that the writing up would be helped -- the 25 writing up of the old 3.8, the new 3.1.1, would be helped by iO -
O -
m, 4
,m -,
.l l
l 6743 05 02. 55 MM mte I having most of the other material available to whoever
('
. 2 writes it.
3 MR. MILHOLLIN: So it now remains to decide when 4 we think we can get this done and how much time it will l
.5 take.
6 I guess we're running into the lunch hour here, 7 aren't we? l 6 George suggested that he thought it would he very 9 hard for us to finish unless all of the information =.s in a 10 useable form by the end of the month of September. Do you 11 agree with that, or is that.too late?
12 MR. OSTRACH: What's defined as information?
13 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. That would mean that the 14 writing up of the options with the advantages and 15 disadvantages,. the writing up of the cases, the conclusions I'6 from the charts, the descriptions --
17 MR. SEGE: Mr. Chairman, maybe a simple way of
-18 putting it would be all of Section 2 and all of Section 3, 19 except for Subsection 3.11.
20 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
- 21 MR. FRYE This should be finished by the end of 22 S e ptember t is that what you're saying?
23 MR. SEGE: Yes, I would think so.
24 ..
MR. FRYE I would certainly agree with that. I 25 think we have got a hairly extensive amount of information O
l 6743 05'03 56
'MM mte' I
~that we have got to deal with, and we certainly won't have
\ 2 time , once we have go tten this toge ther, to be able to fcusx 3 on it and try to reach some conclusions as to the 4 recommenda tions ' we wan t to make. Then you've got to allow 5 some time for processing the whole thing, you know, having
^
6 it typed and put toge ther .
7 So I guess in my own mind it looks to me like by 8 the middle of October we ought to be in a position to sign 9 off on the report, close to the middle of October. And I 10 don't see how' we can po ssibly do that if we don't .have all 11 this information finished by the end of September.
1 12 MR. OSTRACH: That gives us two weeks in October j I
13 to work on Section 4, which, -af ter all, is the bottom line, l 14 and to polish up Section I, which is unrelated to the body I
(). 15 of the report mostly. That strikes me as sensibles We have l
j 16 a group meeting scheduled for the last Friday in September, 17 which is September 28. I guess that ought to be our target 18 date.
19 MR. MILHOLLIN: September 28 is a group meeting 20 date. ;
i 21 MR. FRYE I have a problem with that. I will be {
22 Hon travel. But -I'll talk to you about that later.
23 MR.. MILHOLLIN: O kay . Well, barring special
, p:
24 problems, what do you think about September 28th for having 25 it all written and useable?
i
' ,?
- O, j
W 4 . .
~ci*J 05 04
,_,MM.mte 1 MR. 0STRACH: Done.
'sY -2 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Which means that the first 3 two weeks in October, again -- well', okay. Now, w ha t about 4 timo? !
l 5 MR. LOVELACE: Full-time, would you believe?
MR. MILHOLLIN: Full-time?
MR. QUAY: I t icoks tha t way.
MR. LOVELACE: If we're going to do it by !
9 September 28th --
~
10 MR. MILHOLLIN: I think i t's time to decide that il question. I am willing to go in and carve out the time, do 12 my best to do tha t. I think Gossick has been instructed to 13 make the time available, because the Commission wants the ,
14 re por t. So I think you should decide how much time you are >
O- 15 going to need and tell me, and then if there is any problem 16 ge tting that time available, then we'll discuss it with the 17 su pe rvisors.
18 MR 0STRACH: Should we speak to you separately or 19 do you want us to Just go around the table now?
20 MR. MILHOLLIN: Would you pref er to do it 21 separately?
22 MR. OSTRACH: I don't care. You can put down two 23 days for me.
24 MR. MILHOLLIN: Two days for you, okay. ~
25 MR. OSTRACH: That's per w.eek, right?
I . .
t6743 05 05 58 -
MM mte i MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes. This would be an average
.U 2 figure.
3 MR. SEGEs ,
That would be reasonable for me, also.
4 MR. MILHO'11N: It could be that it would be 5 possible to maybe apportion the workload in a certain 6 sense. I mean, if you have more time at the beginning than 7 you have at the end, or vice versa, it might be possible to i i
1 8 shift it around. The people who are assigned to write up 9 the things which we're going to need by the end of the month 10 obviously should plan to spend more time early, so they can l
11 get this stuf f turned out , so t ha t the people who will be 12 pulling it together can do that.
13 I guess I'll be saving my time for the first two 14 weeks in October, in which the students will get rather O 15, incoherent cla sse s, probably, i
16 (Laughter.) !
l 17 MR. MILHOLLIN: So I think maybe you should l 18 consider that, too, as you are making your estimate.
19 So Steve and George , two days a week.
20 Would anyone like to talk to me privately? It's 21 okay.
22 MR. KNIEL: Put me down for two and a half days a
- 23. W eek.
24 MR. MILHOLLIN - All right.
l 25 Some of you have been here a shorter time, so the i
I m
4 A "b e
i l I 6743 05 06 59 l MM mte 1 equities in putting in more time would be greater, perhapst l
'l' l
l 2 have a more intense experience over a snorter period. l 3 MR. BERSON: I would say two days for myself and 4 two days for Myron. But I don't want to bind Myron by what 5 I'm saying.
6 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
7 MR. QUAY: Are you people including review of 8 materials generated by others?
9 MR. OSTRACH: (Nods affirmatively.) Maybe you !
10 better make it two and a half days for me.
11 MR. MILHOLLIN: Two and a half for Ostrach?
12 MR . OSTR A CH : Yes. I t's a half-time job.
13 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
14 MR. NASH: From wha t people have said so f ar, I'd 15 be inclined to stick with two and a half days, if the ,
lo estimate is two days. I think I have to add something on.
17 So I think the two and a half days would be --
la MR. BERSON: I'd say two and a half.
19 MR. OSTRACH: I'd say two and a half.
20 MR. MILHOLLIN: Bill, what do you think?
21 MR. LOVELACE: Bill, I don't have any idea.
22 There's. a lot to do..
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: I know you're in for quite a bit.
24 I agree. And I gue ss John is, too. You and John have 25 f airly heavy assignments. Of course, I don't know what l
l
' f% -
i (_)
c ,
6 e
6743 05 07 60 MM mte 1 other plans you have during this period of time.
2 '(Laughter.)
3 MR. LOVELACE: Just what I was showing John.
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, I know. Bill had -- there 5 were some rather ' conflicting plans -with Bill's time during 6 tha t period. So maybe that's a case we'll have to work out
, 7 individually.
8 MR. LOVELACE: Yes.
Y MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. How about you, Ted? Can 10 you go along with the generic 2.5?
11 MR. QUAY: Steve's trying to tell me I need six.
12 MR. LOVELACE: I think you need some extra time, 13 too.
14 MR. MILHOLLIN: You want me to put down three?
O 15 MR. QUAY: Yes.
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: Three and a half ?
17 MR. QUAY: Three, let's try it.
18 MR. MILHOLLIN: John ?
19 MR. FRYE I'll s peak with you privately.
20 MR. OSTRACH: Elitist.
21 (Laughter.)
l ,. 22' MR. QUA : It's fortunate I've done-some work 23 alrea dy.
24- MR. MILHOLLIN: Were there any other bloody 25 matters we have to discuss today or are we finished? Oh,
- /
'f g
l 6743 05 00 61 l
MM m te I yes, schedules for meetings between now and the end of our 2 existence. Now, I scheduled a meeting for next week, with 3 the thought that we might need one. I'm not sure we do.
i 4 What do you think about tha t? Do we need a )
5 meeting next week? !
6 MR. QUAY: I don't know what we're going to 7 discu ss if we had it.
l , l 8 MR. MILHOLLIN: All right. Well, shall we have V one in the middle of the month, at which we can discuss the 10 ma tters which wi.ll have been produced by then?
4 11 MR. BERSON: It will probably be more appropriate.
12 MR. FRYE Why don't we schedule one for the i 13 middle of the month, and then, as we get a li ttle closer to 14 i t, we'll be able to see if it will be productive.
O ,
15 , MR. MILHOLLIN: All right.
~ ' ~
16 MR. OSTRACH: I'll put in a Federal Register 17 notice postponing the 7th to the 14th, all right, out here 18 a t 9: 30.7 19 MR. MILHOLLIN: The 14th is a Friday?
20 MR 0STRACH: The 7th is, so I guess the 14th is.
~
21 MR. MILHOLLIN: All right, I guess I deserved
. n.
22 that. -
23 (Laughter.)
24 MR. OSTRACH: The 28th is, too. We discu ssed tha t 25 earlier. We have the whole month pretty well scoped out.
7, '
9 9
4 m 4
. - _ . . . ~ . . . - . . . - . .- . - . . - . -. .
. . ;,. . - .:, . ~...,...w~~~-
- o743 05 09 62 c./.l.t a te i MR. QUAY: Does Stave get class clown or what?
U '2 MR. MILHOLLIN: Steve becomes hostile if he 3 doesn't get fed.
4 (Laugnter.)
5 MR. MILHOLLIN: The 14th here at 9830. I gue ss a !
6 we'll have to make arrangements to get the space, John.
, -[ 7 .I don't have anything else. So we're mee ting on i
% )
< 6 t he 14th and the 28th, okay?
V V (Whereupon, a t 12:45 p.m. , the meeting was 3 l
10 adjourned.) '
il 12 i 13 O 15 -
16 17 16 19 20 21
. 22 23 i 24 - is l
25
"(
n l
l
, ,.