ML20196K480
| ML20196K480 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/14/1979 |
| From: | NRC - ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION DURING ADJUDICATIO |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACCA, NUDOCS 9903260371 | |
| Download: ML20196K480 (91) | |
Text
. . -. .- ..... .. .- - . - -
F _
obrt
", y N U C L E A R - R E G U L AT O R '( COMMISSION l
1 l IN THE MATTER OF:
h ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION .
~
DURING ADJUDICATION !
1
).
~
L Place - Silver Spring, Maryland
! Date . Friday, September 14, 1979 Pages 1 - 90 9903260371 790914 PDR 10CFR 7*Sh*"*
i PT9.7 PDR (202)347-3700 ACE . FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfficialReponen VN *3 )
l 444 North Capitol Street . )k"&
' t
/
Washington, D.C 20001 c Tn r n g . -
. NATIONWIDE CCVERAGE. DAILY t.
)
- . - _ . . . - - . . - . - -. . . - . - . . - . ~ . . - . . . _ - . - - . . - ~ . . - . .. ...~ ,.
1 1
- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
]
! 3 l
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR 4 POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION DURING ADJUDICATION 5
6 7 Room 415 4350 East-West Highway 8 Silver Spring, Maryland 9 Friday, September 14~, 1979 I l
10 The Advisory Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m.
PRESENT:
12 MR. GARY MILHOLLIN, Chairman I3 MR. BRUCE BERSON MR. JOHN FRYE Id MR. KARL KNIEL MR. BILL LOVELACE i 15 !
MR. DARRELL NASH '
MR. TED QUAY
~
I0 MR. STEVE OSTRACH !
MR. GEORGE SEGE i I7 MR. MYRON KARMAN i MR. JOHN CHO i 18 ,
I 19 I ;
20 21 '
22 23
. [ 24
!.Ab non.n. in:.
25 k .
c . . . . - . -._ . .._ - - .. .- _. .. - - -- _ -.
l l339 01 -01 2 1 PR0CEEDINGS V(1EE2 MR. MILHOLLIN: The tenth meeting of the Advisory 3 Committee on Construction during adjudication will now come 4 to order.
5 As you notice f rom the absence of any agenda, 6 there won' t be an official one today. .Perhaps it would be 7 best just to go around the table and have a st'atus report 6 from each person who could give us a brief resume of the 9 main aspects of the work that that member has done. Perhaps 10 we should start with George. .
.11 George has a comment here which it might be good i
i 12 to consider as a group. Would you agree, George?
l l , 13 MR SEGE: Yes. I think it might be appropriata.
, 14 MR. MILHOLLIN: Shall we take a moment to reaJ .t.
15 and then, George, you can explain it to us?
l l 10 MR SEGE: Yes, that might go f aster than my just 17 reaoing it out loud.
le (Pause.)
IV MR. MILHOLLIN: George, would you like to 20 elaborate on this f or us before we make comments?
21 MR SEGE: Well, I don't know whether I can really I
22 elaborate. I bring this up as a possible but necessary 23 consequence of the option made and the ef f ectivene ss of the 24 addi tional i ssue in litigation. When one starts out with 25 new anc relatively complex de partures f rom clo practices, f %
l l
b390102 3 iEE (d 2 1 these proce sses are suf ficiently complex that one has to recognize devious ways in which they could work out. And l
l 3 w ha t I said here, really, is perhaps a more lengthily-said 4 version of the Scottish remark about the best laid plans of l l l l 5 mice and men.
l 6 MR. CHO I wonder if we are at the pro per stage
, 7 to be discussing options at this point. Shouldn' t we l 8 perhaps start as you earlier suggested and maybe find out I 9 what the total picture is?
1 10 MR. MILHOLLIN: Perhaps so. John Frye has been 11 assigned the honor of writing up this option in the final 12 report. Maybe John would like to just think about this fs 13 po ssible cifficulty. l e i
\
(- / 14 MR. FRYE Well, my reaction to it is that I think 15 it is a well taken point. This could happen. I guess, 16 initia.11y anyway.
17 MR. NASH: The premises of a pplicant A, it seems 16 like it would be a rather unusual set of circumstances. An 19 excellent non-controversial a pplication. The applicant has 20 allowed an extra six months f rom the initial decision to 21 start construction. This doesn't happen very of ten.
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: So, from the staff reviewers we 23 discover that this woulc indeed be an unusual case, you 24 t hink ?
25 MR. NASH: Yes.
O i
l
$39 01 03 4 Pr-&{EE I MR. CHO I have some question with the other k- 2 premises, too. The six month premise , f or example.
3 MR. MILHOLLIN: That applicants would allow an 4 extra six months?
5 MR. CHO Well, one , I think we would have to find 6 out wret the proposal is that we expect that we 'are 7 considering. In other words, not only make immediate 8 effectivene ss an issue, but what is the scope of that V immediate eff ectiveness? Will it become effective eight 10 months hence, or af ter the appeal board has finally decided-11 on the merits?
12 It seems to me we have to know a lot more before 13 we can start drawing conclusionc.
14 MR. MILHOLLIN: Before we could assume that the 15 applicant would allow six months, we have to know what it 16 was the applicant based his calculation on, and that really 17 is a question that we won't know until we pu t in our lo report.
19 MR. CHO: Preci sely.
20 MR. MILHOLLIN: And it i s ac ted u pon by the 21 Commi ssion.
22 MR. FRYE But it is some thing to keep in mind.
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, but I think it is a good 24 po in t. I mentioned to George that I hope that people from 25 time to time would circulate their loroiration with respect A.
. - . - . - -. . .. . . = . - .. - -
7 - - . - . ._ .
939-01 04 5 j'~jEE 1 to a certain conclusion or a certain option we are taking b 2 up. I sent around my " tentative conclusions" in the hope of 3 just stimulating some thought on things that we might 4 already have tentatively concluded. And I take it George is 5 just doing the same thing here?
6 MR SEGE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, my intent was to call 7 a ttention to one aspect of the possible consequences of one 8 option. The extent to which I took the analysis will not 9 withstano detailed scrutiny a t this time.
10 MR. MILHOLLIN: George, do you have any progre ss 11 reports to give us concerning your work?
12 MR SEGE: Well, I expect before the next meeting
,-s 13 of the committee to have completed the criteria write-up for
/
i
(_s/ 14 the evalua tions. And the options drawn up and the criteria 15 write-up, I e x pec r to work with Steve Ostrach as well as 16 yourself on the options write-up, with you as indicated in 17 the a ssignments list. Of special other busine ss, the items lo that other people will not part1cularly be depending upon, I IV am deferring for another couple of weeks to the early part 20 of Oc tober.
21 The re is i tem 4.1 and the other contributions to 22 the introduction, which not mucn else hinges on.
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Are you planning to circulate
, 24 draf ts of that as you do it, George?
l l 25 MR SEGE: O h, yes.
'O V
1 939 01 05 6 P NEE I MR. MILHOLLIN: That ref ers to 3.1 of the outlinei U 2 doesn't it?
3 MR SEGE: The criteria is 3.1 of the outline.
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: And the options 3.2, the survey of 5 options?
6 MR SEGE: Right. l 7 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Anything else, George?
I 8 MR SEGE: No, that is about all I have, 9 Mr. Chairman.
10 MR. MILHOLLIN: Myron?
Il MR. KARMAN I distributed the write ~ups on the 12 control cases at WPPSS ano Palo Verde and the cash flow
~_ 13 information was supplied on that chart by Darrel. I was
(,,/ 14 working with Karl Kniel and Darrel on the accelerated 15 trea tment of issues, the new item 3.7 and Karl may have 16 copies of that to distribute now.
17 MR. MILHOLLIN: Why don't you just start them 16 there and they can go around by themselves? That is l
IV excellent news. Have you managed to do the part of the 20 write-up in which the options are a pplied to the case? ;
21 MR. KARMAN: To a particular case?
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes. In George Sege's outline of 23 the write-ups I noticed that there is a final section wnich 24 is a rather difficult one and that is that each case, each 25 one of the cases that is individually wri tten up would be l
O
\
Ow l
l 539 01 06 7 1 examined from the view of the various options.
t"!EE i
2 MR. KARMAN: We have not included that yet.
3 MR. KNIEL: He's no t talking about 3.7. He's 4 talking about the individual case write-ups.
5 MR. MILHOLLIN: I am talking about Palo Verde and 6 WPPSS, the individual case write-ups.
7 MR. KARMAN: There answer there is simple and it 8 is left alone because I don / t think any of the options would 9 have any effect on those two cases.
l .
10 MR. NASH: I comple ted Palo Verde. What is tha t 11 --section four? The last section, anyway. And it really 12 -- none of them would have any eff ect upon Palo Verde. And 13 WPPSS, I haven't completed that section. There may be some
/~'s l s _) 14 more potential there because it didn't go through as neatly 15 as Palo Verde. In fact, there were by f ar a nu .ber of to issues that delayed the licensing process.
17 MR. KARMAN: I'm not sure any of them had any l 16 relationship to the immedia te e f f e c ti ven e ss.
lv MR. NASH: By the time it got to immediate 20 ef f ec tivene ss --
21 MR. KARMAN These were delays which normally --
22 abnormal delays during the course of a licensing proceeding 23 and not necessarily relating to the proceeding itself , but 24 delays dealing with the handling of the application and the 25 s taf f-a pplican t i n te r pl ay . But I'm not quite sure that O
V
l
- 139 01 07 8 Br-'iEE I meeting the ef f ectiveness would have had any eff ect on it. )
h-)) 2 We might give it a good going over again.
l 3 MR. OSTRACH: Wouldn't some of the options delay )
4 the eff ectiveness if there were no subsequent events? For 5 example, waiting until the appeal board completed its merit 6 review would have had the eff ect of delaying initiation of 7 construction and initiation of operations?
8 MR. KARMAN: The delay in operations would.
9 MR. MILHOLLIN: To be even-handed, we should say l 10 that if option number X, which was a delay option, had been 11 in effect, then eff ectiveness would've been postponed in l l
12 this case for no reason. l l
13 MR. KARMAN: We can add that. i l
(/~')s 14 MR. NASH: And tney do have , in response to the 15 question, an estimate of the cost of delaying for certain 16 periods of time. j 17 MR. MILHOLLIN: If , f or example, the option of le making ef fectiveness an additional issue and licensing were lv adopted, then you could say, f or example in this case, that l 20 it would or would not have affected that case because the 21 board probably would have held that there was no such 22 i ssue . For example --
23 MR. KARMAN Yes.
24 MR. MILHOLLIN: Go through the options and see 25 wha t would have happened in this case had they been a pplied.
, (
l~~.
l.
@39 01 OS 9 P'" NEE i MR. NASH: I guess I interpreted that section 2 slightly diff erently. I thought it was directed toward what 3- problems would be solved by diff e- it immediate eff ective 4 options. And it would not have solved anything in that 5 case, since there were no issues in controversy.
6 MR. KARMAN: This was maybe the jaundiced view, 7 with which we looked at it.
8 MR. QUAY: I think that is the way you and I 9 l ooked at i t. How would the options heve assisted in this 10 particular case?
11 MR. OSTRACH: I wouldn't have used the word 12 assisted. I would have said, how would they have aff ected 13 this case? I thought the reason we included control cases
.O
(,,/ 14 which presumably were ones where the pre.sent rule f unctioned 15 best and the options would show up as an alternative.
16 MR. CHO What you mean by aff ected, though, 'could 17 -- i t could be affected many ways, obviously, pure delay le affects it. Is that the significant standpoint of our study 19 here or are we talking only in terms of, would they have 20 changed as a result of a different rule?
21 MR. MILHOLLIN: It wouldn't make a diff erence, for 22- e xam pl e , if you adopted the option of suspending all 23 eff ectivene ss for eight months or nine months. That would 24 produce a pure delay in a control case with no corresponding l 25 benefit wha tsoever, wnich woulc indicate that it is not a i
g
. bs_ h
i
$39 01 09 10 1 good idea, at least from the evidence of these cases, to 7--)9EE
(
\-- 2 abolish the rule across the board for a certain period of l
3 time.
4 If you change the rule so that the eff ectivene ss 5 would occur at the end of the appeal process, and there were 6 no appeal in this case, then there would be no cost in 7 having such a change, at least for these cases.
8 MR. KARMAN: Minimal, anyway.
9 MR. MILHOLLIN: I assumed that all these cases 10 were reviewed sua sponte, although I don't know.
11 MR. NASH: Yes. I 12 MR. KARMAN That's on there .
13 MR. MILHOLL.IN: Tha t's what I think we had in mind r
[(h) 14 by saying, How would the options change the cases. And the 15 control cases were put in to show that there would be a cost lo in some actions. I am trying to be f air by showing that 17 there would be a cost in changing the system for some cases.
16 Excuse me, Myron, I interrputed you.
19 MR. KARMAN: Well, on item 3.5, Ted Quay and I are 20 getting together and working on that aspect of it. It will 21 probably take a couple of weeks to ge t that thing done.
22 MR. QUAY: We dic have a question on that, t houg h, 23 didn't we, Myron? There are certain things dropped out of 24 -- like option 3, you're dropping out part C and D.
l 25 Have other people looked at that to see where they I
$39 01 10 11 l . ['SjEE I are picking it up, if it is being --
l \ ,/ !
l 2 MR. MILHOLLIN: That is the ones we indicatec we l 3- were not pursuing, is tha t right?
l 4 MR. QUAY: Right. Here we go, part C and D.
l 5 MR. MILHOLLIN: Presumably John Frye and I are 6 seeking about options C and D. Could you remind us again l 7 what those are, parts C and D of option 37 6 MR. QUAY: They are crossed out. !
9 MR. KNIEL: part C is applicant request immediate l
10 eff ectiveness and no good cause is shown for delay.
.11 MR. QUAY: They are both good cause type of !
l 12 things. , I 13 MR. KNIEL Part D is applicant shows urgency and
/"'S i
- km / 14 no gooo cause is shown for delay.
15 MR SEGE: Those are, in fact, picked up in the lo option of making eff ec tiveness an additional issue and 17 indication --
le MR. MILHOLLIN: They were moved to an another 19 option, so they are not f alling through the cracks.
20 MR. QUAY: The same here? I I
21 MR. MILHOLLIN: Then your question is on option l
22 four, A and 3. I think, based upon the workshop discussions 23 there was a tenta tive -- at least I kina of concluded l 24 tentatively, maybe without justification, that putting a l
25 dollar limit on expenditures was not practicable. peo ple 1
(~%
i $?
I l
l
939 01 11 12 1 s.eemed to agree at the workshop that that was simply not
()'EE
\
~'
2 going to help and couldn't -- it wouldn't be a reasonable 3 approach. ' And there seemed to be a concensus on that.
4 I guess that-is the reason f or saying we are not 5 going to pursue i t, but I am open to hear remarks to the j o contrary. Does anyone think we need to pursue that? l 7 MR. KNIEL: I think you can get the same effect in 8 a more rational way by saying LWA's, f or instance, finding a 9 certain work scope that is a11 owed, that puts a dollar 10 limit, and it is a much more rational approach to that. j
.11 MR. MILHOLLIN: Than just picking an arbritrary 12 number?
,, 13 MR. KNIEL: Yes, even if we have some numbers that (s_/ 14 can be substantiated by experience f or diff erent sites. So 15 I think if you want to use that approach, that is the more lo rational way of using it.
17 MR SEGE: Mr. Chairman, in a situation of this lo sort, where an option isn't f ully explored, wouldn't it 19 still be good to say a f ew sentences about it to show tha t 20 it was considered but then no t considered in detail for 21 objections that became quickly apparent and some 22 amplification of what tnose objections were?
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: That's a gooc point f o r our po se s 24 of the re port. We'll need a sentence on eacn one of these 25 possibilities, ano of course the sentence could conclude s
@39 01 12 13 I simply that we didn't think is was practicable. And I think l]EE 2 the same would a pply, perhaps , to A, although there seemed 3 to be a general f eeling that if A were useful at all, it 4 would be necessary to turn it around, that is to allow 5 immediate eff ectiveness for cps but not for LWAs and not o vice versa.
7 People at the workshop seemed to be mystified by 6 why it was we were considering allowing only LWAs to be 9 eff ective and not cps rather than to the contrary. But 10 again, I suppose that is some thing you all could consider
.11 when you are looking at that option..
12 MR. OSTRACH: We discussed it. Tha t wa s on my
,,_s 13 panel at the workshop and we explained that the intent f 1 Am ,/ 14 wasn't to make LWAs effective and not cps effective, but to 15 allow eff ectivene ss, only to allow work to be done, only to lo the extent permi tted by an LWA, the idea being that perhaps 17 the amount of work that could be done under an LWA was a 18 reasonable way of stopping the work at a certain point.
iv Maybe it isn't a very good place but that was the 20 intent. It wasn't to focus on the significance of LWA as 21 much as it was the amount of work.
22 MR. KdIEL: That's what I meant when I just said 23 there' were more rational approaches, anc I think that is a 24 more rational a pproach.
25 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, I agree. Myron, you and Ted i
/*%
N i
l l
. . - - - .. - . . -.-. _ ~ - - - - - . . - - . . ~ - - - . - - . - , _ . _ . . - . - - - - - - .
339 01 13 14 i
l F iEE 1 have those, do you not?
1\} '
'2 MR. KARMAN Yes.
3 MR. MILHOLLIN: We're assuming'you're going to say. ,
4 something about those, whatever it may be. .
t l 5 MR. QUAY: So you're not excluding those options?
6 MR. MILHOLLIN: We're not excluding them from 7 considera. tion, no. George's point is that you have to say 6 some thing about them one way or the other.
I 9 MR. NASH: Are you making any distinction between 1
10 an LWA-1 and an LWA-2?
11 MR. OSTRACH: I assume that option is being ;
12 basically brushed aside and .just explain why it was --
13 MR. KNIEL: Well, LWA-2 is just another small ,
s r
i 14 - increment of work on LWA-l. And in effect it'11mits the 15 extent of the effort. It is just another increment on it.
lo MR. KARMAN: I see John has distributed the charts 17 on the appeal board decision. <
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes*.
IV MR. KARMAN: Bruce and I distribed the original 20 chart, which needs some f urther sharpening and cleaning up, 21 which we probably will have oy the next meeting.
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. It occurred to me when I l 23 was looking through it that some people have specific 24 personal knowledge of those casos and it might be a very 25 good icea f or everybody to look at the write-up of those i
i a
l
., . - ..- y r ,, . . . , _ , - , . e .-,
, , ~ w w- -
339 01 14 15 j'~~jEE 1 charts to make sure that nothing is misstated. I think --
V 2 J o hn , I think you mentioned that your recollection was not 3 the same as the charts in one instance.
4 MR. FRYE Bruce and I talked about that but I 5 think we were in essence both right. We were talking about 6 two different aspects. !
7 MR. KARMAN: I see under item 2.1 -- I noticed 8 that Bill Lovelace has submitted generic cash flow and y delays associatea costs which were just passed out this 10 morning and as I indicated before, Darrel and Karl Kniel 11 distributed the accelerated treatment of issues which might 12 be influenced by ongoing construction.
13 Tha t is about it for me, up to this point.
rx k,_,) 14 (Pause.)
15 MR. MILHOLLIN: Thank you. Bruce, do you have lo anything to add?
17 MR. LERSON: I nave nothing to adc.
la MR. MILHOLLIN: Steve?
19 MR. OSTRACH: I can only say what the progress has 20 been. Ted and I completed work on the Seabrook case study 21 and we haven't submi tted it ye t. Items 1.1 and 1.6 --
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: Excuse me, Steve. Before we leave 23 Seaorook, you are ref erring to the application of tne 24 options to the case?
25 MR. CSTRACH: Yes.
(v\
i l
39 01 15 16 L P4EE- 1 MR. QUAY: Well, the total write-up.
j g -
2 MR. OSTRACH: Ted did part four, the chart.
3 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Excuse me, go ahead.
t 4 MR. OSTRACH: The material in chapter one of the l
\
l 5 re por t, the background and public participation, I have 6 wri tten the background. And the public participation 7 section, I haven't written that but most of that will be 8 updating what's already in the re port.
I 9 MR. MILHOLLIN: So the background is finished, you i 10 say? Will you have a draf t of that to pass out?
11 MR. OSTRACH: I didn't bring it with me. !
12 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. l 13 MR. OSTRACH: I have not done item 3.3, which is ,
,r ~ -
l 14 the discussion of the pre sent system, and item 3.6, which is 15 the discussion of the option of the Commission monitoring a i l
to system of lower board proceedings, I have not yet done that j 1
17 also. Those are the tasks principally assigned tc me.
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: The only remaining one, I think, 19 is the oiscussion of issues which arise outside of the 20 normal licensing procedure.
21 MR. OSTRACH: I am supposed to be working with 22 Sill on that anc I haven't ye t. I have been out of town.
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Let me ask you a question about l 24 that. Since so many people mentioned Bailly and we don't ,
l 25 have a write-up of the ca se, do you tnink it would be usef ul l
1 l
l l
939 01 16 17 KE' I to have a write-up of Bailly in that discussion?
2 MR. OSTRACH: I don't know very much about Bailly.
l 3 MR. MILHOLLIN: I'm not thinking of a complete 4 write-up in terms of an individual study write-up, but just 5 a presentation of what ha ppened. Well, I am thinking of ,
o commissioners who might be interested in the case and who 7 know about it, would understand that we've taken it into
'N 8 a ccount , because we requested information on it f rom the
(
l p' 9 u tili ty, old we not?
10 MR. OSTRACH: Yes.
.11 MR. MILHOLLIN: And we don't have any systematic 12 tre a tme n t , no? !
13 MR. QUAY: We don't have the information. We have N-- 14 requested it.
15 16 17 to lv 20 21 22 23 24 l
25
.(
- . . - . . . . - _ - - = - - ~ _ = - . - . . ....---.- -. -.- _ - ..
CR6839.02 '18 HEE' rm % 1 MR. MILHOLLIN: It is promised, is it not?
U 2 MR. QUAY: It is promised, but we do not have it.
- 3. MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, that'is just a question I 4 ask, Steve. Do you think it would be feasible or useful to 5 include a write-up of that case as an example, perhaps, of the l
6 problem which arises because of these issues which come up 7 outside the normal process.
8 MR. OSTRACH: Bailly had at at least two separate 9 times, had these nonreview issues 3.n their package, the l
10 pilings thing and the slurry wall thing.
11 MR. FRYE: 'I'm not sure about the two separate l
p 12 times. I know there was certainly the issue of the slurry wall
'13 which came up after the Commission had approved it.
14 MR. OSTRACH: And now the short pilings issue has 15 come up.
i 16 MR. FRYE: I'm not familiar with that. I i
17 MR. OSTRACH: That's before the Commission right now; l
18 MR. FRYE : It may have come up in terms of the 2.206.
19 MR. OSTRACH: I think that's the same thing. It !
20 is an issue in change in construction, so I guess I have got ;
21 to agree with you that it is a fairly good case for considering 22 these things.
23 MR. FRYE: I would. agree with that, too. Because !
n
- 24 certainly it was a classic case in which the early effects of
- e Facers Reporters, Inc.
25 construction have been substantial and adverse.
l l
., _ _ _.. _ _. _ ~._ _-~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ -._. _ .~. . . . . _ _ . _ . . _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
19 r 1 MR. MILHOLLIN: Would it also be accurate to say 2
that none of the options 'that' we are considering would really 3 avoid that result either, would they, because of the time l
4 the. issue first came up?
5 MR. QUAY : You have to be constructing the plant 6 to have the issue arise.
7 MR. MILHOLLIN: Would any of the options have 8 avoided that situation where you have already got the con-9 struction going on and then it is discovered?
I 10 .MR. FRYE: Well, I think from the standpoint of the 1 l
11 environmental effects that were of concern at Bailly, that 12 effect was the possibility that the water in the site would 13 have an adverse effect on the Indiana Dunes National Seashore. l 14 And my recollection was , and Bruce probably knows, 15 this, that this applicant agreed not to dewater the site until I
16 the final agency approval had been obtained. Is that correct? i i
17 MR. BERSON : Or they agreed to delay for four months 18 to allow the appeal board to rule on the stay request. But I l
19 think that arose fairly early. That was hotly contested f i
I 20 throughout the hearing.
l 21 MR. FRYE: Then after the appeal board approved the I 22 dewatering system and that became the final action of the 23 commission, . the Staff approved a switch from well point !
((O,) 24 dewatering to a slurry wall system of dewatering. And the
..Feder:4 Reporters, Inc. ,
25 Commission said, " Hold on, that was the major issue in the case.
l
-- . . = . - .-.- _- . . - . . - ~ _ . _. - . . - _ _ . - .
20 pp 1 You can't do that without a hearing."
i -) 2 And so they sent it back for a hearing.
3 Now, at the time that that happened, the Intervenors 4 had taken the case to the Seventh Circuit, and the Seventh 5 Circuit, because they obviously were concerned with what would 6
happen _to:.the Indiana Dunes, had imposed a stay, so there was 7 no question of whether the Administration was opposed to that.
8 MR. OSTRACH: Why did the Bailly licensee switch I 9
from well point dewatering to slurry wall? Was it because 10 he had started construction and discovered that one way was I 11 more effective than the other?
12 g MR. FRYE: My general recollection is, and I am
\
' l 13 really hazy on this point, but my general recollection is that l 14 he determined that there was less likelihood that the Indiana !
t 15 Dunes would be damaged if they used a slurry wall than there 16 i i was if they used well point. l 17 MR, OSTRACH: '
My pohnt it, is that something he i
18 l'could only have discovered once work was underway? l.
I9 !j MR. KARMAN: I think it was before the issuance 20 of the CP. I'm not sure.
21 MR. FRYE: Well, the whole issue of the effect on i 22 the Indiana Dunes was a major issue all the way through. But ,
23 it wasn' t until af ter the appt 1 board decision became final O,,/ 24 p.F(ederal Reporters,
. that the Staff approved the slurry wall thing.
Inc. And precisely 25 why he switched, I don' t know.
I
21 MR. OSTRACH: I think the point that Gary was trying rm7A 1
'\ ' -
2 to make was that for some types of issues that arise outside 3 the normal course of review, no option can possibly be effective 4 if they are matters that only will come up once construction 5 is started.
6 That guarantees that adjudication on this issue 7 will follow construction. It can't precede it because the 8 issue can't arise until construction is underway.
9 I don't know , but let's say that the change from 10 long pilings to short pilings at Bailly came about because I 11 they did test borings and they found out that they could only
~~ 12' use short pilings -- I'm hypothesizing now.
~ 13 Then, the issue of whether they should change from 14 long to short has to be adjudicated after construct..on is i
15 underway, because they didn't know they were going to do it i
16 until they had started construction. !,
17 And I think, by definition, none of our options can 18 deal with that situation. Our options at most can set up a ;
1?[ situation where everything is perfect and you let construction 20 begin. But by their nature they can't deal with what is 21 discovered by construction.
22 MR. FRYE: I agree with your hypothesis. And it i
23 might be true of the pilings, but I don't think it is true
{x s
24 with the dewatering systems.
.JL r..porms, inc.
25 MR. SEGE: There is an option that does this, and
l
! 22 rm ~*x 1 that is the option that construction permits should be issued 2 only when design is essentially complete. And design would l
l 3 not become complete until test borings are made and that sort 4 of thing.
5 That, of course, doesn't guarantee that there 6 wouldn' t be additional discoveries of new facts later. But 7 that would be diminished by insisting upon a degree of completicn 8 of design at the time that the CP is issued.
9 MR. QUAY: I don' t know if the design gets into 10 the construction technique, though, that Royceman was talking i
. li about. It could be constructed in totally different manners 12 and have the same design.
13 MR. KNIEL: That's right.
14 MR. SEGE : I was referring here to the design i
15 question of how long the pilings would be. i 1
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: I guess the thing that concerns j 17 me is suppose the applicant had not been willing to go along l l
15 with postponement in construction and had insisted upon beginning.
19 '. Then that would be a case, it seems to me, that should be part 20 of our deliberations , wouldn' t you say?
i 21 MR. FRYE: I think from that point of view, yes.
- 22 I'm not familiar with this pilings problem. But, yes, it is 23 a classic case, because the allegation there was that the 7-'s ,
j(_,) 24 early effects of construction would do substantial environmental
- o Federet Reporters. Inc.
25 harm.
~
l t
23 l l
ang " 1 And I think -- again, I'm speaking from recollection, 2 and I might be wrong -- but I think the appeal board told the 3 applicant they weren't going to let him go ahead. And that 4 probably prompted him to say, "Well, I will hold the excavation 5 level of the water table."
6 MR. MILHOLLIN: So you could argue that the case, 7 the record in the case shows that the present system is capable 8 of handing that problem, the pr,blem of irreparable environ-9 mental harm?
10 MR. OSTRACH: That was the point that I believe 11 Judge Rosenthal made, isn't it?
12 MR. FRYE : Yes, he made that point. i 13 MR. OSTRACH: At Bailly, he pointed that out as a 14 case where they had ex parte hearings.
15 MR. MILHOLLIN: Everybody seems to be talking about 16 Bailly a lot when the immedihte effectiveness question comes , l 17 up, and we don't have a system or a treatment of the case in l 18 our reports so far.
l i
19 MR. FRYE: I agree that it would be good to have !
i 20 one.
21 MR. MILHOLLIN: I think that is going to be viewed l 22 as a gap, and I just wonder where a good place would be to do 23 it. <Should we just include it as an additional case and just ;
(-'\
)
~
[ ( 24 have an additional write-up?
b.F.o.rci n.ooriers, inc.
25 MR. FRYE : I would say yes. I think the only hangup'
24 rm 1 is whether we are going to get the information we need to write 2 it up the way we have writt-n up the others.
3 MR. QUAY: The question is, is the cash flow 4 important in that case pertaining to the option? I don' t i
5 see that it is. It looks like one of these oddball things 1
6 that the system may have coped with, and maybe that is what we 7 can say in the writeup.
8 MR. MILHOLLIN: Or that the issue was simply 9 environmental harm, which we don't need data to substantiate.
10 MR. FRYE: We can certainly write it up without the I 11 data, and I think we should do it. It might be better if we s 12 had it, and perhaps we can get it.
13 MR. QUAY: We can try.
14 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, following our previous I
15 pattern, we normally have a lawyer plus an engineer on the !
! I 16 writeups. Any volunteers at this point? l 17 MR. OSTRACH: Perhaps this would be best, since we f
i 18 are not going to discuss the cash flow, do we need a chair on 19 ; this? Do we need an engineer on this?
s l
20 MR. MILHOLLIN: Perhaps we don't. i l
21 MR. OSTRACH: We are not going to discuss dewatering I
22 and perhaps our engineering brethern can be spared. John and t 23 l I could do it. ' I would do it myself, except I happen to know ,
i 24 nothing about the case, which would shorten the discussion. 1 m Fentl Roorutt inc. >
q 25 MR. MILHOLLIN: Of course, John is already loaded j i
il' l
25 >
nne-T 1 MR. CHO: Well, I will volunteer with you, Steve, U 2 since John is pretty heavily saddled.
3 MR. MILHOLLIN: John is, yes. I'm afraid that would j 4 be an additional shovel on the camel's back. Okay, that would 5 be good.
6 MR. QUAY: I will contine to pursue the cost 7 information on Eailly.
8 MR. MILHOLLIN: All right.
l 9 Steve, is that all you have? '
10 MR. OSTRACH: Yes.
11 MR. MILHOLLIN: John. John Cho.
f-ss 12 MR. CHO: I had two basic assignments. One was to t
U 13 write a case study on the St. Lucie II. I have circulated a 14 draft of the background aspect of the proceeding. I haven't 15 written the Section 5, the analysis section, because we have
! l 16 not received the cash - flow information from the utility.
17 I understand from Carl that that information is l 1
18 promised and we hope to get it soon. I i
19 j MR. QUAY: We even had a gentleman here last time l
20 who said they were responding to anything, and it wo-ld 21 be pretty much on time. I contacted him earlier this week and I
22 apparently Hurricane David had some impact on responding to l 23 that, I guess maybe getting people to the of fice or whatever. -
24 fL D Fewel Rooruts, lm, MR. MILHOLLIN: Maybe papers were blown away. 1 25 MR. QUAY: It was definitely in the mill, and we i'
- t. - _
t-l 26 l
1 will have something like that. This was on Tuesday er Wednesday ,
i 2 I contacted him. ,
1 l 3 MR. CHO: My other basic assignment is 3.6, the )
l 4 outline of the final report that covers the appellate procedures. l 5 I have not undertaken the writing of that yet, pending a review 6 of the drafts of individual studies and the other information 7 dhat has been circulated.
8 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
9 John Frye.
10 MR. FRYE: Well, I finally completed a draft writeup 11 of the four charts which I have prepared, and I think I have s 12 given everyone a copy of that. My oEt tentative conclusion
-( 13 from that is that it shows that the issues which are likely ,
14 to be affected by construction during appeal are not too j
i 15 frequent, and when they are frequent, the appeal board has l
l 16 been sensitive to them and has taken appropriate action to j i
17 prevent them from being influenced by ongoing construction.
l 18 But as I say, this is a draft, and I certainly hope 1 everyone will read it and make whatever comments they feel l
20 are appropriate.
i 21 There is also attached to the back of this a writeup; 22 of an interview with Valentine Deale who is a member of the 23 panel. Carl Knial went through the (Catawba and Cherokee d 24 case studies yesterday afternoon, and I have a rough idea of ,
- e Fooeral fieporters, Inc.
25 the options on those two cases, which I will write up and try
.I
_ _ _ _ _ _ ~ . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ . _ . . _
27 0- 1 to get to you the first of the week.
l 2 MR. KARMAN: Could I interrupt for a second? Did '
4 3 everybody get a copy of my writeup with Mike Farrar? I sent i i 4 it out.
5 I just want to make sure, because sometimes through 6 the mail --
7 MR. QUAY: Was that final?
8 MR. KARMAN: Yes, I wouldn't send it out until it 9 was final.
10 MR. MILHOLLIN: While we are interrupting, I have 11 submitted my writeup of the interviews of Bradford, Ahearne, l 12 and Hendrie to those Commissioners. i 1
( 13 MR. OSTRACH: We have Hendrie's comments back. He i 14 small changes. I have not seen the Bradford and Ahearne.
15 MR. QUAY: They are waiting for the report.
16 (Laughter.) I i
i 17 MR. MILHOLLIN: I am scheduled to talk to i
'15 Commissioner Gilinsky this afternoon at 4 :00 o' clock.
19 Excuse me, John. Go ahead.
20 MR. FRYE: Let me back up to this draft writeup ;
1 a
21 I did a couple of things on. I want tu point out -- !
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: You are talking now about Catawba - !
l 23 and Cherokee? '
24 MR. FRYE: No, I am back to the draft writeup of i s-Federd Reporters, Inc. l 25 the four charts.
t
, ,= s .~ -
28 rmrT 1 I discovered that one case had been inadvertently l
V 2 lef t off of Chart 1. It is Hope Creek, and I will have to give 1
3 you a revised chart, one to reflect that. l 4 Also, I think there may be a typo on another page.
5 The other thing I thought I would just throw out 6 as a suggestion, now diat we have this writeup, Myron and l
7 Bruce's writeup, is that perhaps it would be helpful at some l 8 point to say the three of us, and perhaps John Cho, could get 9 toge ther.
10 MR. KARMAN: I thought it would be a good idea.
l 11 The chart people. I 12 MR. FRYE: In writing up the options on Cherokee.
f 13 MR. MILHOLLIN: John, could I ask you a question 14 about the charts?
15 MR. FRYE: Sure.
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: Have you gone into the subject of i
17 remands? Do the charts show whether there is a case which !
18 l was reversed and remanded and does it show for what period the i l I 19 ;! remand was outstanding?
l 20 I am thinking of a case in which, for example, the I 21 appeal board said the record is incomplete on a certain, l 22 important question, and we reverse for that reason. We will ,
23 send that case back to you for further hearings.
t
- \s, 24 I guess what I am getting at is for that period t> Federal Reoorters, Inc.
25 between the reversal and the time when the licensing board d
29 2 1 makes it second decision, there is no outstanding decision 2 which is complete in the view .of the agency, and yet construction 3 is going forward. 1 4 If there is an issue remanded which could be 5 prejudiced by construction, I guess for me, at least, that 6 would seem to be important.
7 MR. KARMAN: The appeal board usually does take that i
8 into ec u eideration on remand, and ordinarily would make a !
9 comment as to whether or not there is, in their opinion, 10 something which would require a halt in construction, or 11 whether they feel construction can continue even during the l g 12 remand. They usually will append that to the decision.
i 13 MR. FRYE: I agree with Myron. I think that you 14 will find, going through this -- while I don' t have the !
! I i ,
15 information you specifically asked about, that they are very l )
i 16 flexible and the appeal board is very flexible in how they [
I 17 approach the problem. l i
18 In one instance they say, well, we will delay l l 17 construction for four months , because in that period of time !
20 nothing will af fect this issue. In another instance they 21 said we will let construction proceed, but we remind the
, 22 licensing board that is has ample authority to suspend the i i j '3 permits if it is warranted by the evidence.
7-s
(\ j 24 In other instances they said, well, we will let the h Federaf Reporters, Inc.
25 LWA-1 outstanding with no further authorization to take care i
30 ,
I rap ^ l of this.
't 2 MR. MILHOLLIN: One can get a good idea about that.
3 MR. FRYE : As to your specific question, no, I 4 don't have any information on the length of time between the 5 . appeal board decision remanding the matter to the time it 6 was finally taken care of.
7 MR. MILH LLIN: We know from the. charge nether 8 there were cases.-in which issues could be prejudiced on. remand?
9 . MR. FRYE: Yes. I think this writeup, hopefully, 10 should give you an idea of what the issue's were.
Il MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. So the only thing we don't 12 have then is the longth of time.
(.. 13 MR. FRYE : Yes.
14 MR. MILHOLLIN: We can tell what the issues are.
15 Well, I guess that's the important thing, isn't'.it, whether 16 there was a remand and what the issues were. And we can assume' 1
17 that an X period of time elapsed, I suppose, between the I 18 reversal and whatever happened next. [
! l 19 And we can assume, I guess, that unless we are told, '
1 20 ' there was a stay, that construction was going on.
, j 21 MR. FRYE: Yes. I have tried to highlight, I have i ,
22 tried to pull out any instance in which the appeal board 0 -23 referred to on construction. And this information may be in 24 here. I did not try to highlight it, I mean, the information b.Feeer t Rooorters, Inc.
25 as to the length of time may be in here in very rough form, but I
31 4 1 I did not try to highlight it. )
l 2 You would have to try to dig it out if it is there. l i
3 MR. MILHOLLIN : Well, if you managed to highlight I
4 the appeal board's treatment of the problem of construction, l
5 that is very valuable, it seems to ma.
6 MR. CHO: I think the point you raise, though, is 7 a significant one. And I'think it.would help if we specifically 8 indicated the time interval involved in writeups. Because 9 not withstanding what the appeal board says, it might make a 10 difference whether it has been only a three-month remand period, i 11 or three years.
12 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes. If the appeal board says in 7-~
(\s ) 13 four months we don't think anything bad can happen, and 14 14 months elapses before the system takes a stand on it, maybe 15 that would be important to know. ;
}
16 I am just reluctant to pile something else on the i i
17 camel's back. j i
18 Do you think somebody could get -- could you have :
19 ! that done, or is the licensing board -- excuse me, Bruce.
20 Did you have something?
s 21 MR. BERSON: I tilink much of that information is 22 in the charts that I had prepared back some time ago on the 23 cases that were remanded. I don't know how well it ties in with Q, 24 the cases you have identified, but I would presume that we t Fees Reporters, Inc.
25 probably picked up most of the same cases.
L 32 rm7 '4 1 MR. FRYE: Let us get together, and maybe we can Id 2 decide what is the best way to go about getting this.
3 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay, all right. That's a good ;
4 suggestion.
l 5 Excuse me, John. Go ahead.
l 6 MR. FRYE: Are we through wi th this? I will move 7 ahead to Cherokee and Catawba again.
8 As I said, Karl Kniel and I went through the 9 Options 2, 3, 4, and 5, and applied them as best we could to 10 the writeups that we had. And I will write that up and 11 hopefully get that to you the first of the week.
12 We didn't consider 6 and 7, because we didn't see
- 13 how that could ~really be applied to the information that we 14 have in the case writeups. And'I am going to attempt to do 15 the same thing with Midland.
I 16 Bill Lovelace hhs come up with an extensive chart 17 which has an awful lot of information on it, on the Midland l i
18 case. And it is unique. l 19 ( Construction began, what, it looks like over three l
20 I years before the CP was tissued.
21 MR. KARMAN: We have had cases where extensive 22 construction has taken place before the first day of the !
i 23 licensing hearing under the old exemption.
("
7((
p-Foceret flocorters, Inc.
24 MR. FRYE: Well, they get an exemption or variance, 25 as they call it, and eventually they got a CP.
l l - . . .
33 rm 1 MR. MILHOLLIN: It is still being discussed post-TMI.
2 MR. FRYE: While we are on this subject, I don't 3 know-but I thought it might be useful for us to think about how l 4 we want this sort of information set out.
5 I think we would probably want to be uniform in our !
l 6 presentation of the case studies. I have seen them have two 7 or three different approaches to that.
8 I think Bill has done an excellent job on this. But 9 moving on from that, I also hav'e Bill's writeups on 2.1, which 10 were the generic cash flow and commitment information for 11 the delays and cost of construction.
12 And I thought our two schedules , that I would try
, b
-/ 13 to write something up on that, taking that and using it as a 14 basis to write something up on 3.4, and then send that to him 15 so he could take a look at it while I am away and perhaps we I,
16 would be able to get something in draf t distributed by the next :
17 mee ting. l i
18 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes , I guess the assumption was that l 19 b the information generated on 2.1 would be applied to or could ll 20 be applied in Item 3.4 to the options. I 21 MR. FRYE: And then you and I, of course, wanted !
l 22 to talk to interview Allen Rosenthal again, which would fit :
23 into this 3.4. ;
l 24 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
t
.Frh/ Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. FRYE: We may at best just be able to get a l I
- _ . _ .- . . . . - - . . . - . - . . _ . . . . . - . - _ . . . . _ . - - . - . - . _ . . ~ . . . . - . - _ . . . - . - - .
l 34 7 1 tentative draft of the.t.
i 2 MR. MILHOLLIN: By the next meeting?
l 3 MR. FRYE: Yes. I also see where ably being 4 assisted via question mark there? ,
1 5 MR. MILHOLLIN: In Item 3.4?
6 M".. FRYE: Yes. I think that pretty well runs down Gnd #2 7 my progress report.
8 9
10 11 l g 12 l
l 13 i !
I 14 l 15 16 l
i 17 i i l l 18 g ll l 19 ll l l
?
20 , .
21 22 i
i j 23 24
(
p.Feaa neoonen.ine.
25 l,
$39 03 01 35 j %E 1 MR. MILHOLLIN: Af ter we finish our reports, maybe 2 we can talk about uniform approaches in writing up case 3 studies, whether that is feasible.
4 Karl, you are next.
5 MR. KNIELs ,
As Myron mentioned, Darrel Nash and I, 6 with Myron's help, comple ted a write-up on 3.7 issues which i
7 might be influenced by on-going construction.
8 MR. MILHOLLIN: You passed that out just now, Y didn't you?
10 MR. KNIEL: Yes. Do yot want to disucss that?
11 MR. MILHOLLIN: Sure, go ahead.
12 MR. KNIEL: We looked at three ways you might do s 13 this. The first way, when we investigated them in some j
) '
f C/ 14 detail, the first approach was to require the Licensing 15 Boards to process environmental and site suitability issues 16 first, as they presently do f or an LWA, followed by l l
17 subsequent immediate appelate review. I IS I did get a lot of statistics out of the tv NUREG-0292, which is the so-called Denton Report on 20 licensing, and there have been a lot of cases where people, 21 a pplicants, have requested an LWA, so there has been quite a 22 lot of experience with this particular approach. The only l 23 diff erence is this would be f orced on everybody, instead of j 24 it's being an optional approach. And the trends do indicate 1
25 that you save an average of ten months, and that's based, 1
'(k_/ l l
l
i l -
!@39 03 02 36 l J'~"4 EE I I think, on 23 cases, so it is a good basis, i
2 MR. MILHOLLIN: Excuse me. You mean, as opposed 3 to not having the LWA device?
4 , MR. KNIEL: Right. You save ten months on 5 initiation of construction as opposed to waiting for the 6 CP. By having an LWA, the average saving is ten months as 7 opposed to waiting for the CP.
8 MR. MILHOLLIN: Does that also tell you whether it 9 is also saving in ge tting the plant on-line?
10 MR. QUAY: It has to be. ,
.11 MR. KNIEL: Normally it would be, unle ss you 12 squander the ten months someplace else.
q 13 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, that's what I'm wondering?
\_,) 14 MR. KNIEL: You wouldn't. As a consequence of 15 doing it this way, you wouldn't. It is an independent 16 occurrence. I think it is f air to state that you would get !
17 the plant on-line ten months sooner, yes.
18 MR. MILHOLLIN: I was juct thinking perhaps you're 19 doing in ten months what you could do later in a shorter 20 period if you had the CP.
21 MR. KNIEL: No.
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: That's a f actual question. I'm 23 just asking. I don't know the answer to that.
24 MR. KNIEL: In my judgment, the answer would be l
25 no.
I ub
. \
139 03 03 37 E I MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
2 MR. KNIEL: Because the whole basis of the LWA is 3 to allow activities which have to be done in series and 4 which give you that added benefit. In other words, the LWA 5 wasn't some thing that was proposed on a lark. It was l 6 l proposed because there was enough knowledge at the time that !
7 this procedure had merit in reducing the time needed to get l 8 the plant completed.
9 MR. QUAY: You can't start foundation work until 10 you have f ully excava ted.
.11 MR. KNIEL: These are all things you have to do in 12 series, so I would say that ten months is definitely a real 13 benefit. Now presently, with unconstested cases -- or O
s) 14 rather with cases for which no exceptions are taken, af ter 15 the LWA i s issued , the rule says that the decision is final to within a 45 day period unless the appelate body states 17 otherwise.
16 And the information we have at the moment is that, 19 f or those case, i.e. no exceptions were taken, for the most 20 part, the decision was made final within the 45 day period.
21 So the appelate process only took 45 days in those cases or 22 l e ss.
23 Now for the cases where you do have exceptions --
24 MR. MILHOLLIN: Excuse me, are there fairly recent 25 ones as well?
/~N b
039 03 04 38 l f^'EE 1 MR. KNIEL: I beg your pardon.
l' 0 2 MR. MILHOLLIN: Are the cases where that's true 3 fairly recent?
l 4 MR. KNIEL: We haven't truly done a good review of 5 when all the cases were, but most of the cases have really 6 been recent.
7 MR. FRYE I think it's saf e to say that when you 8 hava an uncontested case, the Appeal Board almost always 9 acts within that 45 day period to review it. The other 10 thing, though, tha t doe s ha ppen --
11 MR. MILHOLLIN: You say when no appeals are filed?
12 MR. FRY E Yes.
-s 13 MR. KARMAN: Sometimes you can have an uncontested .
7( ,/ 14 licensing hearing where one or more parties will appeal the 15 initial decision on an LWA. Now we've had an example of lo that with Cherokee where both the applicant and the staff 17 took exception to tne Licensing Board's partial initial 16 decision authorizing the issuing of an LNA. And they both 19 asked f or a stay, so that was an aberration.
20 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, the case only became 21 contestea af ter the Licensing Board decision.
22 MR. FRYE: Sometimes that ha ppens. I didn't 23 realize it had na ppened a t Cherokee.
24 MR. MILHOLLIN: But tha t's unusual .
i 25 MR. KARMAN : Yes.
i l
(x_ /
\
I D39 03 05 39
,g'~'8 EE i MR. FRYE There is a tendency, I think, on the V, 2 part of the Appeal Board to put off its review.
3 MR. KARMAN: That's right. As a matter of fact, I 4 think the parties asked for a stay. They didn't want a 5 decision, but I'm not sure if there's any other case other l 6 than tha t. That really is an aberration.
7 MR. MILHOLLIN: John, excuse me. You say, put off 8 their review. Are you speaking of LWAs?
Y MR. FRYE Yeah. If you have a proceeding that is 10 uncontested, say, in which an LWA is obtained, my 11 understanding is that the Appeal Board tends to postpone its 12 review until all the initial decisions have been rendered, 13 and then cover it in one decision. So you might run into O
, 7 ( ,) 14 the necessity to change the practice in that respect.
15 MR. MILHOLLIN: I take it, Karl, you are looking 16 into that possibility or Myron?
17 MR. KNIEL: I'm a little confused at this point.
18 I think we would like to ge t a li ttle be tter history of Iv cases to see what actually occurred.
20 MR. MILHOLLIN: You mean whether the Appeal Board 21 did review the LWA separately?
22 MR. KNIEL: Yes, that's right. Sort of ge tting 23 two views.
l 24 MR. MILHOLLIN: Myron, have you looked at that at
! 25 all?
L . _- _
._m..._._. .
@39 03 06 40 c'"'EE I MR. KARMAN: The question of putting off any L U 2 action on the LWA whether it has been contested until the l 3 end of the construction permit? I'm not sure.
4 MR. FRYE Of course, there are so f ew uncontested 5 proceedings that it's hard to generalize, but my 6 understanding was that if there were an uncontested i 7 construction permit proceeding with one or two or three 8 initial decisions, the issue for completed the LWA-1 and 9 Lh A-2 and CP that the Appeal Board's practice was not to 10 review the first or second initial decision separatly but to 11 review them together with the third initial decision.
12 MR. KARMAN: That is not my understanding. I know 13 of one that I was thinking of. I know there was an LWA-1, 14 which I believe went up and was sui sponte affirmed, and l
15 then subsequent an LWA-2 came up which made the same l 10 course. My recollection is not the same as yours, but we 17 ought to check on tha t.
i 16 MR. FRYE We can find out.
IV MR. KARMAN: Which is the information I gave to 20 Karl. My recollec tion --
21 MR. KNIEL: My write-up is based essentially on 22 Myron's recollections.
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Which is that there is not a 24 postponement?
25 MR. KNIEL: That's right.
o s b
. .. .- - ~. - . - - . - - . _ - - _ . - . - - - . - . . . . . - . - - .
@39 03 07 41 ,
lAOEE 1 MR. MILHOLLIN: At our workshops, some of the 2 litigants expressed the view that this was the practice of 3 the Appeal Board -- to suspend action on the LWA until the 4 CP decision was appealed.
5 MR. KARMAN: This was on uncontested cases?
o MR. MILHOLLIN: I don't recall whether the l l
7 distinction was made.
6 MR. KARMAN: Well, we know for a f act that many 9 times the LWAs have gone through appe11 ate review before the 10 cps are issued. Thi s i s wh'ere there are no exceptions to 11 the partial initial decision of the Licensing Board 12 authorizing the issuance of an LWA.
13 One , f or exam ple , I know for a fact that the j
\s) 14 Appeal Board acts on that rather expeditiously.
15 MR. MILHOLLIN: So you would say that in virtually lo every case in which exceptions are filed, there is no 17 quesiton about i t? The LWA is reviewed expeditiously?
16 MR. KARMAN: Oh, no. I'm saying where exceptions lY were not filed.
i 20 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Where exceptions were not 21 filed, your impression is there is a quick review?
22 is. KARMAN Yes.
23 MR. MILHOLLIN s or there is no deferral?
24 MR. KARMAN: Once exceptions are filed, then they 25 get into that second category. So I suspect you will find "N
i r - - - -n - r ,q --w ,
_ -. __ . _ . . - _ . .._ _ _ .__.__ _._ _ . _ _ _ - _ ._. _ .~._ ___ _ ___ _
l
!@39 03 08 42 l
l
'*4 EE 1 examples that will go both ways or either way, and it may be
- (c' 2 tha t there has been a shif t of policy within the Appeal 3 Board.
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: We.11, where exceptions are filed, 5 there is a def erral or not? l o MR. FRYE No, I don't think there is any deferral 7 where there are exceptions filed.
8 MR. CHO: They're talking about a situation where 9 there is no exception filed, 10 MR. MILHOLLIN: I realize that. Joe, the question ll is whether the Appeal Board reviews it immedictely.
12 MR. KARMAN: I can't understand how the Appeal 13 Board could sit back and wait. The purpose of the LWA is to 14 get expedited treatment. How can the Appeal Board sit back 15 and wait until the CP is issued? I t doe sn't make sense.
10 What it would do. in eff ect, would obviate the 17 purpose of the LWA rule.
18 MR. CHO: They can do it because of the immediate 1Y eff ec tivene ss rule, i 1
20 MR. KARMAN: I question that, but we will check it 21 out. ,
22 MR. KNIEL: Well, it is of some significance to l 23 our wri te-up, bec ause I have leaned on that argument to i l
l 24 concluoe tha t the i ssues can be segregateo out in the
\
l '
25 appellate process.
k 1
I I
l
l
'339 03 09 43 E I MR. MILHOLLIN: Tha t they can be?
MR. KNIEL:
2 Yes, by virtue of the fact that i t has 3 been done.
4 MR. FRYE: Well, whatever the practice is now, I 5 think it's conclusions are right that, yes, they can be.
6 MR. MILHOLLIN: That you could segregate them out?
7 MR. FRYE: You could get a quick review of the LWA 8 decision.
9 MR. KNIEL: The contested case, the appeal is 10 handled e ssentially similar to an appellate review in a CP
.11 case, and the Appeal Board tries to handle it in an 12 expeditious f ashion, and it may or may not resolve it 13 quickly, or it may go on for long periods of time.
(3
\s / 14- We don' t f eel tha t there is anything to 15 distinguish what you do about the immediate ef f ectivene ss 16 rule here f or LWAs that you wouldn't apply to cps. There is 17 only one really f actual dif f erence, and that is that the LWA 16 work is limiteo. So this goes back to what we discussed a 19 f ew minutes ago -- namely, that you might delay the 20 immediately ef f ectiveness rule for a CP but not delay it for 21 an LWA. You might not im po se i t. You might not change the 22 rule for LWA. You might just let them go ahead. That is 23 the only thing that oistinguishes the LWA f rom the CP.
24 So whatever you decide there would be equally i
25 applicable, witn that di s tinc tion.
o
i l
b39 03 10 44 er-9EE I MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay, f
2 MR. KNIEL: We looked at other ways of changing
. 3 tne staff reviews such.as to address the issues earlier and 4 more expeditiously and ef ficiently. Basically, the way we 5- just discussed is the way the staff has done this in the 6 past. In other-words, the environmental report comes in j.
7 early- and the site suitability information comes in early, 8 and that is how they get the early LWA and save the ten L
9 months.
10 But there are other 'possiblities, and again we 11 leaned on the Denton Report, NUREG-0292. They made a number 12 of recommendations, and f rom those we selected three which 13 we think would further enhance the expeditious treatment of 14 the issues that are important in on-going construction.
15 And the three recommendations that we selected lo ares one, involving icreased pretendering coordination with 17 applicants and number four, which involves expand and to restructure the. acceptance reviews and number six, which 19 involves increased public participation during staf f review.
20 We felt that the f allout from the implementation 21 of these three recommendations would be to get an early 22 s tar t in involving everybody, all of the parties including 23 the public, the applicants, the staf f , and all of the public 24' in some of these issues early on and a resolution of some of 25 these i ssues, ano , the ref ore , possibly a lighter board and l
/~'g .
L
--M 7 m - -p-m w-
@39 03 11 45 l I the appellate process subsequent to that. We don't f eel fE 2 tha t there -- we think these would be beneficial, but we l 3 don't think that the substitution or implementation of these 4 three recommendations is a substitute for changing the 5 immediate eff ectivene ss.
6 MR. OSTRACH: How has the Commission treatad those 7 recommendations? They are three years old now.
8 MR. KNIEL: They are very enthusiastic about all 9 of them, and we tried to implement them. And I think we are 10 implementing them on one or two applications. The problem 11 is we haven't had a CP application that is really being 12 processed with any kind of f eeling of strong, i mm edi at e 13 interest.
(O,) 14 MR. OSTRACH: Palo Verde 4 and 5, as I remember, 15 was being given pretendering treatment.
lo MR. KNIEL: That is correct. And i t was handled 17 su cc e ss f u lly. It is not a good test case because it was a 18 much easier case than you normally have. The site has 19 already been investigated. The units were a standard 20 plant. But the principles were successfully applied in 4 21 and 5. The one tha t the staff is trying to apply, it was a 22 New York State application that was delayed, I think, right 23 af ter it came. That was for Haven.
24 MR. OSTRACH: I think that might have been 25 withdrawn by now.
l
,O O
i
l
!@39 03 12 46 t .j4EE 1 MR. KARMAN: No, it has not. It is New Haven.
2 There is a Haven out in the Midwest, but this is New Haven 3 up near Oswego. It is not very promising, but i t ha sn' t b een 4 removed.
5 MR. KNIEL: I think the Connission wants the NRR 6 to a pply all of these recommendations, and the NRR is 7 anxious to do so. But we haven't had a really good 8 ,,.ication to apply them to.
Y MR. OSTRACH: I think it would be helpf ul if we 10 could include some of that material in the discussion.
11 MR. MILHOLLIN: That would be a good thing because 12 we promised, I think, a couple of times to tell the
_s 13 Commission what the connection is between what we're doing
- , 14 and other things that the Commission has commissioned, or 15 the other things that the Commission is having studied, lo things the Commission is considering to speed up the 17 licensing process. So we owe then a paragraph or two, I 18 think , cescribing what ef f ect this new arrangement might lY have on our recommendations.
20 MR. KNIEL: We can include that. The third would 21 be the ealry site review, and Darrell did most of the work 22 on this, and I think he could explain it be tter than I.
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: All right.
24 MR. NASH: Do you want me to do that now?
25 MR. MILHOLLIN: Karl, do you have any other 2o things?
lt i
- - - - . . - . - . . . ..-- ~ - - . . . . . -_ - - - . .
939 03 13 47
, E 1 things?
2 MR. KNIEL: No. The work on the cash flow problem 3 for St. Lucie is delayed because of the lack of the 4 a pplicant's response. I think it would be useful if we had, 5 if we decided on some uniform approach or roughly uniform 1
6 approach to presenting the cash flow information. !
7 I got together with Ted to see how he did it, and 8 I did it in a similar manner, although it is not quite as 9 complete as Ted's. Yours is different than ours.
10 MR. LOVELACE: I did not have all the inf ormation 4 l'1 or as detailed information as Ted did.
12 MR. KNIEL: The other thing is we went through the 13 application options, and it might be usef ul to go through' I (U i4 those here if you think so later to see what our thinking iS was, and everybody else might get exposed to that kind of to thinking. Also -
17 MR. MILHOLLI,N We might also have sort of a 16 standard attack on applying the options to the cases.
19 MR. KNIEL: Yes, I think it would be useful if we 20 had some kind of communication between us on those before 21 you get a stack of treatments that are all diff erent.
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: I was going to say that maybe it 23 would be be tter -- maybe i t would be good for just those of 1
24- ycu who are doing the cost flow stuff to get togethef and l 25 agree among yourselves on the best f ormat.
l A 1
o . -
1939 03 14 48 g 4fE I MR. KARMAN: I think they could do that probably
-- 2 be tter toge the than out in the open floor.
l 3 MR. MILHOLLIN: That would seem that way to me, 4 unless you need some help f rom the lawyers, which is 5 doub tf ul, o (Laughter.)
7 MR. CHO: There is a problem, though, tying in the
]
8 cash flow inf ormation with the history of the case and l 1
9 analysis of the case. I think certainly there is a need --
1 10 I think that point can be covered, and at least one. lawyer J1 being present could help in that respect.
12 For example, in St. Lucie, I have no idea of what 13 kind of cash flow informa tion that's going to come in, and '
) 14 I'm not sure how relevant wha tever information will come in Ib to the issues that we have under consideration will be.
lo MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, we've gone through the 17 application or the options and the cash flow information to 18 the legal posture of the case. In two instances, it is my 19 understanding -- Seabrook and, John, you've done it right.
20 MR. FRY E Karl and I did it for Catawba and 21 Cherokee.
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: This has been done for Seabrook 23 and Catawba and Cherokee. Is that all? That's my 24 understanding. Well, when the f our of you get together --
25 MR. KNIEL: I think the cash flow thing, I'think A
i I
V) l
839 03 15 49 EE 1 it is appropriate that the engineers probably ge t toge ther 2 and decide how we want to present that. But I think on the 3 options --
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: No. I guess I wasn't making 5 myself clear. I was thinking that when you decide upon a o format for cash flow, maybe you could check with the lawyers 7 who have cone the options to see whether that format would 8 be agreeable to their needs. That is what I'm ge tting at.
Y Does that sound okay? I guess that would be John and Steve, 10 since if you are proposing pu tting that information in the 11 form -- would it make it more difficult to a pply the 12 options? Then you could find out. How does that sound.
-s 13 John? Steve, doe s tha t sound okay or not?
\m,/
14 MR. FRYE I gue ss I would have to observe that of 15 the three diff erent approaches I've seen so f ar, I've lo thought all of them really met. the requirements.
17 MR. MILHOLLIN: So this really is not a probem, 16 then ?
IV MR. FRYE Not in my mind, anyway.
20 MR. MILHOLLIN: All right. Okay. Then we will 21 omit the necessity f or consul ting.
22 MR. FRY E Well, I'm not trying to argue against 23 t ha t . I think someone else might want to look at i t. I 24 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, why don't we leave it to 25 your own judgment. Once you come up with something, why sx/m l
039 03 16 50 rr -"EE I don't you just run it past John and Steve, and see if they
' i, j
'- ' 2 have any trouble with it.
3 MR. KNIEL: That is all I had, and Darrell is the 4 appropriate one to make the presentation on the early site 5 review. ,
o MR MILHOLLIN: Okay.
7 MR. NASMt I went back and put in a little bit of 8 history about where site review is now. In the two V provisions under existing regulations, the early site 10 review, one, is a staff review of the application and for a
.11 staff report to come out on that which will later be 12 a ppended to a further application. We are waiting for a 13 later a pplication to come out. And the second option would
( ,) 14 proceea through a hearing on an early site review.
15 Both of these are voluntary, except that the case ;
10 where tne hearing is to be held -- I think it ha s the e f f e c t 17 of -- well, I think it is well to say that as f ar as the lo
~
I record now, they are both voluntary. Then there is before IV the Commission right now a proposed rule on alternative 20 sites. And one of the primary considerations in that is an 21 early consiaeration of alternative sites.
22 Mithin this there are two options: one is oc an 23 entire alternative site, alternative site review, wni c h 24 woula be early and then just an early review of the proposed 25 site. This is a rule which resulted f rom a staff study and
+
[]
\\~ )
k
l
$39 03 17 51
- \ EE I then was submitted, and a workshop was held last spring rQ 2 where various members of the public, intervenors, utilities, l
3 and state representatives discussed the staff proposal. And 4 then the proposea rule was made f rom that.
5 And, egain, under this proposed rule, it is not a 6 manda tory a pproach. But in the proposed rule there is the 7 idea of -- well, it is a carrot and stick approach, as I 6 think that term was introduced even in the staff studies, in 9 that if the applicant comes in f or an early site a pproval IC and then is later reversed, the sunk costs are not counted l 11 against at the proposed site. And I guess some thought on 1
12 the part of the proposers of the rule was that this would
-~ 13 tend to encourage applicants to come in early and protect
,(\-- 14 themselves in case there was a reversal.
E! 53 15 l
lo 17 18 IV 20 21 22 23 24 l
25 C\
'k
39.04 g grN g i In looking at this, particularly the proposed rule
. u. 2 now, and you can include, I think, the existing rules, it 3 seemed that if the proposed rule particularly were made 4 mandatory, that this would go, to a large extent, toward an 5 option. It would be an alternative to immediate effectiveness.
6 However, it is a f ar broader consideration and has s f ar broader objectives than what the potential problems of 8 .any e ffec tivene ss may hold.
9 So that I think the three of us tr . .ead this over 10 particularly concurred that as an alternative to changing tne 11 immediate eff ectivene ss rule , it is kind of a sledgehammer 12 approach.
13 But if it were in place already, then it may get O l-1 around some of the problems.
(}
15 So I think that is about where we came out with it.
16 Ine other part of my efforts, I have the case Il studies, or Myron and I have the case studies on Palo Verde 18 and WPPSS 3 and 5. Both of them are, to a large extent, 19 although I guess listening to the discussion this morning, 23 there is more work to be done on Section 5. There is a 21 two-page document on Palo Verde which eve ryone has.
22 One point that I might oring up on this, that is 23 the second page snows the cumulative e xoe ndi ture s, is tnat 24 in ooth of these cases, maybe it's oecause you can e s11 nem 25 case cases or control cases. The information on cash flow O
U
i39.04.2 53 jv'sg i prior to the granting of the CP is not detailed by time flow. l ked 2 You only have the information on cash flow that l
3 starts with the granting of the CP. And in both cases at 4 Palo Verde, there were some minor delays prior to that time, 5 and WPPSS, there were some f airly ma jor delays prior to the 6 CP. And there would have, I suspect, if you had had the i e information on a cash flow prior to that, there would have 3 oeen some starts and stops and this kind of thing that were ,
9 not in the data that were supplied oy the applicants.
10 So I don't know if tbis presents -- how much of 11 a problem tnis presents in terms of, is that information 12 necessary for our considerations?
13 In other words, if you just look at the time since O,j 1 14 the CP was granted, it would probably be three cases. But if 15 you looked at prior to the CP, there was a number of proolems.
16 dow maybe these problems aren't what the committee 17 is concerned with.
IS MR. MILHOLLIN: Whsn you say problems, do you mean 19 problems in construction?
20 MR. NASH: No, this is prior to construction.
21 MR. MILHOLLIN: Is this APPSS or only Palo Verde?
22 MR. NASH: They had substantially more proolems in 23 W PP SS . This is the response f rom tne applicant on WPPSS.
l 24 And the licensing delays, he lists a numoer of thess things l
25 whicn aren'c too important until he gets down to Septemoer of m
i 1
39.04.3 54 p c%s i ' 76, and then they are cumulatively delayed resulting from I h h_s/ 2 U.S. court of appeals decisions, 'in July of '76, resulting in 3- a moratorium on licensing until November, '/6.
4 And this had to do with Taole S-3, licensing ocard ,
i 5 delayed preparation of decision from end of May to July, '77, 6 again, prior to the CP. And RC concerns over 1872 earthquake resulted in moratorium on licenses in the northwest until a February, '/8. And then licensing board delayed preparation 9 until April of ' 78.
10 According to this, this resulted in very substantial 1 11 cost to the applicant, but all pre-CB.
12 MR. KARMAN: Sometimes, when they put down the 13 licensing board delayed decision, wnat, in e ff ect, happened O.
14 there, I believe, we that there was some geological evidence
( }
15 that came up where the staff wanted some additional I
16 information which continued, and then the decision wasn't 1e until that time.
18 I really don't think that it could oe f airly saf d 19 that the licensing ooard delayed.
20 MR. NASH: And some of the ones that I didn't mention.
21 MR. KARMAN: But these are all pre. These are the 22 normal he aring-type headaches , which I'm not quite sure that 23 any of these options would ce very ef f ective in hearing.
24 MR. NASH: My own inclination is that for the purposes 23 of this committee, these aren't really relevant. But in these r
G
39.04.4 55 pf"s I control cases, that's what you're going to get. I mean after
'l 2
.S the CP, everything is going to look rather smooth.
3 MR. MILHOLLIN: It is a curious process by which one 4 selects control cases for the purpose of proving what the 6 control cases will then show.
6 Okay.
7 MR. NASH: I expect to have these in the hands of 8 the committee early in the week, the complete write-up on the 9 two cases.
10 MR. MILHOLLIN: By complete write-up, you mean 11 treatment of the options?
12 MR. NASH: Yes. And I think maybe Myron and I will 13 have to get together.
/~%
f t
14 MR. MILHOLLIN: When you distrioute your draf ts to 15 the group, I hope that you will send my mine by express 16 mail.
li MR. NASH: Yes, T wi ll .
13 Md. MILHOLLIN: Otherwise, it might never arrive.
19 Anything else, Darrell?
20 Md. NASH: It is incidental, but wnat Myron was 21 saying earlier aoout the licensing ocard, that they 22 contributed to the delay of staff review, of course, that is 23 not stated whether it was a lack of information from the 24 applicant or what.
26 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, okay. Are we ready f or Bill?
i
) \
. V
.39.04.5 56 gsh ! MR. LOVELACE: I have completed the cash flow chart
'? 2 on the Midland project case study and discussed it with John, 3 which he has already alluded to.
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: Exc use me . Do we have the final one?
5 You passed out one last time. Is that the same one? ,
6 MR. LOVELACE: We ll , it has the legal --
/ MR. FRYE: It hasn't been passed out for obvious 8 r e aso ns .
9 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay, that's different.
10 MR. LOVELACE: No, that is the same , with just i 11 additional information. And I've also completed a draft on 12 delays and a ssociated costs in licensing and construction.
13 MR. MILHOLLIN: You say that you've comple ted the
(T 14 delay information?
, (Aj 15 MR. LOVELACE: Yes, with the exception of the one 16 a spec t which I think you asked for, the time from LdA or l
1/ CP issuance to start of sits work.
13 MR. MILHOLi,IN: Yes. As I recall, we talked at one 19 time about some cooks which have that right. There are cooks 20 that have that information.
21 MR. LOVELACE: Yes. Well, it isn't compiled. Each 22 coot has got a little bit in it.
l 23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Ea:h rector has a cook and that tells 24 you what happened to that reactor. Is that the way it's 23 organized?
i v
y - -
l 89.04.6 57 i
g r* I MR. LOVELACE: No, not exactly.
t ,(
'b
. 2 MR. MILHOLLIN: O ka y . Well, forget it. But you 3 don't anticipate a serious problem, then?
4 MR. LOVELACE: No.
5 MR. MILHOLLIN: In getting that information?
6 MR. LOVELACE: No. Then I've also completed and i passed out a draf t on generic cash flow and financial a commitment information for power reactor construction. And 9 that is, I oelieve, the assignment I was supposed to have 10 completed by today. !
11 MR. MILHOLLIN: It's rather miraculous that you've 12 managed to do that. Everyone has received all of these 13 documents.
fN MR. KARMAN All except the big cha rt.
(
x_/
) 14 I i
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: Is there a way we can get your chart 15 to everycody?
17 MR. LOVELACE: We can send it to reproduction.
13 MR. MILHOLLIN: Is there a way that we can take a 19 picture of tnat and reduce it in size ? Aren't there machines 2] whica do that?
21 MR. .: RYE That is a possioility. But I tnink it 22 migat be awfully nard to read.
23 MR. KARMAdi .4e do7't have tnat monk in the monastery.
l 24 MR. FRYE Maybe we ought to call him up.
l 26 Md. CHO drother Dominick.
(
I l
. - . . - - - . _ ~ - - - . . - - - -. .
39.04.7 58 sh 1 MR. KARMAN That's right.
/
.2 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, how are we going to get this 3 chart? Is that an insuperable obstacle?
4 MR. SEGE: Our reproduction shop in the basement of 5 the Phillips Building ought to be aole to take care of it.
6 MR. QUAY: They did the spaghetti chart, didn't they?
7 MR. LOVELACE: They could reduce it. I would 3 suggest procaoly a fold-out. If you decide you want to use 9 it in the final report, you send it to graphics.
10 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Any other ma tters, Bill, 11 that you want to report on?
12 MR. LOVELACE: That's it.
13 MR. MILHOLLIN: Ted?
[~')
\
14 MR. QUAY: The Seaorook write-up is complete. It is '
l ms/ l o. in typing 2.3. I am presently drafting that section. That is 16 the Federal Register notice response.
17 MR. MILHOLLIN: Oh, yes, oxay. This is responses of 13 the litigants to the Federal Register notice. It will os 19 a summary of those responses.
20 MR. QUAf Myron covered 3.5 for us.
21 Md. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
22 MR. QUAY: And you and I have a little issue, 3.9 23 on page 5.
24 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, I know. We are wor king on that.
23 I talked to someone in disconsin yesterday, and I'm scheduled
. b ew)
- ~ . . _ . . _ . . ..- .- .-
D9. 04. 8 59 g r* I to talk to somebody else nex't week.
/$
. .h s 2 .So we will just have to let you know what the results 3 of that will be.
4 I would like to look at Bill Lovelace's material and 5 it might help us a great deal.
6 MR. QUAY: I think that is very pertinent to this.
7 MR. MILHOLLIN: I think that that will help a great 8 deal in working out responses.
9 I will write up the Shannon interview.
13 MR. QUAY: I have an addition to make to that.
11 MR. MIL!c:'.LIN : I might say that Ted and I talked to
. 12 Ted Shannon at Bechtel and I have talked to a person at one 13 of the Wisconsin utilities who is in charge of getting plants
(~\
( ) 14 on line, vice president in charge of power production.
t 15 MR. KARMAN: Saul Berstein?
15 MR. MILHOLLIN: No, Bill Keepers. I'm scheduled to le talk to Saul 5erstein next week.
id MR. KARMAN: He knows pretty much acout what's 19 going on.
20 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, he knows all acout me. I told 21 him on the phone last week and he said, you're the f ellow 24 who's trying to postpone licensing even more.
23 Neal, I give you a piece of advice: Saul's oark l 24 is worse than his bite. I think he is a first-class f ellow, 25 out he reasons from the other side. And he's got some pre tty w
I l
39.04.9 60 c'r'x i good reasoning.
J
~ .3so-)2 MR. MILHOLLIN: He seems to be highly respected by 3 people on both sides in disconsin and he has given, I think, 4 the principal testimony on the precertification question, the 5 question of precertification expenses in Wisconsin, which is 6 now a big issue because of Keshkonong and Tyrone. And I 7 think the public service commission is trying to figure out 8 how those funds should be distributed.
9 And he's right in the thick of that. That is a very l 10 interesting proceeding. They're arguing over which account 11 it snould os put in and who should pay for it.
12 I think it is $60 million f or one plant and almost 13 S40 million for the other one.
,-~ i f' 14 So I have some local resources there and I thought l cN s/ m .
\ 15 I would talk to him next week. I 16 dnat do I have to say? Well, let's see, it is my le t urn to re po r t. I don't have much to say except that I'm 13 going to' send the commission a letter which we promised to 19 send to them giving them a status report on our work. It is 20 somewhere in this stack of materials. I have a draft of 21 it he re.
22 Wnat I intended to do was to simply say we've l 23 completed our information gathering and that we are now 24 writing up our information and analyzing individual cases.
23 And we are apply'ng the information we nave gathered to the f~s
~
i
'39.04.10 61 9"]
t 1 options.
(ih./! 2 Let me read a paragraph.or two and ask you for 3 your reaction.
l 4 We have tentatively concluded that immediat e 6 effec tiveness causes proolems only in a limited category of !
l 6 cases. However, in those cases, it seriously discourages
/ memoers of the public who participate in licensing and l
8 causes members of the public to question the integrity of j 1
9 the licensing process. .
10 Tnis category of cases consists of those in which i
11 the issues on appeal are such that consideration of them l 12 could be a ff ected by ongoing construction. Our principal 13 effort, therefore, has been to concentrate upon means by 4
h
( ,/ 14 which these cases can be identified and upon means for l I 15 having issues of this type considered earlier in the licensing
) is process. ;
17 MR. OSTRACH: The past tense there I don't think is 13 entirely accurate. After all, to some extent, we only came 19 to tne conclusion af ter doing consideraole work on other 5
1 20 things.
21 So I would say our principal ef fort had oeen to, 22 or now will be.
23 M.l. MILHOLLIN: Agreed. Does anyone think that that 24' is a little strong or too categorical?
23 ~ MR. CHO Another problem with what you said, you N
\
\: J
59.04.11 62 grb 1 sort of indicated that we have a problem and we ars now
/ \
IV
. 2 oeginning to identify those cases.
! .3 Is that correct? And that is sort of the reversa 4 of what's actually oeing done. We have looked at cases and 5 from those cases, we should be drawing conclusions.
l 6 MR. MILHOLLIN: I think that that is what it says.
s It says first that we have looked at the cases. We are S applying data to them. And then it says that we have 9 concluded that it causes problems only in a limited number 10 of ca ses. ,
. 4 11 MR. CHO And then what's your next sentence?
1 12 MR. MILHOLLIN: The next sentence is: "This is based 13 upon in.terviews with licensing board members upon which there l
[ i 14 is complete unanimity. These cases seriously discourage O
15 memoers of the puolic from participating and it causes them 16 to question the integrity."
17 Ine next sentence says: "This category consists of 18 cases in which the issues on appeal are such - "
19 So that refers to our tentative conclusion that 2J the p*/cblems are only in a limited number of cases.
21 MR. CHO: But I thought af ter that you said something 22 aboJt identifying cases.
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Our principal effort, therefore, is 24 now to concentrate upon the means by which these cases can l 25 ee identified in the future. That is the point.
0\
[
u
39.04.12 63 gehs ! MR. OSTRACH: Maybe we should make that clear.
s b._s 2 MR. MILHOLLIN: All right. In the. licensing proce ss 3 means by which these cases can be identified in the future.
4 MR. SEGE: or could in the. future be recognized in 5 advance.
6 MR. MILHOLLIN: All right. Then the le tter says,
/ we have sought puolic participation and we've conducted a l
8 workshop and that the views expressed in the workshop have
> been of considerable value in influencing our deliberations.
10 And the letter concludes by saying, we're not going to 11 consider operating icensing in fuel cycle f acilities except 12 to a limited extent, and that we will tell them what our i
l 13 data shows on those subjects. But that it won't be a iO)
- V 14 primary part of our effort.
15 MR. OSTRACH: Could you also mention there anti-trust 15 decisions? I I4 Someone in ELD's anti-trust action called up and 18 said. by the way, we issue anti-trus t dec isions. I don't 19 think that anything you have to do nas anything to do with 20 that, out you might as well make that clear.
21 MR. MILHOLLIN: All right.
22 MR. FRYE I don't know whetner that was covered in
- 23 the interim report. '
24 MR. OSTRACH: I don't know. It was my responsibility 20 and.I just forgot scout it.
.n m
,- - v - -
39.04.13 64 gr% i MR. M!LHOLLIN: I also said we reached a similar m- 2 conclusion aoout processes that arise outside the normal 3 licensing process.
4 Is there anything that I should add to this that 5 I haven't covered?
6 MR. CHO Is it worthwhile to re-emphasize the I tentative nature of your report there? I know that you said
- 8. that-at.the outset, but just point out that as we go to the 9 final stages, we may come up with dif ferences.
10 MR. MILHOLLIN: O ka y . - I can emphasize in the final 11 paragraph tne tentative nature of the conclusions expressed 12 a bove .
13 MR. CHO Because I suspect that really will happen as we focus in on the material.
( 14 15 MR. MILHOLLIN: -Yes. Of course-we don't have the 16 cenefit yet of the views of two commissioners. So how could ,
1/ we possioly have reached conclusions which are very 13 definite?
19 MR. OSTRACH: That was said with a smile on your 23 face, wasn't it, Mr. Chairman?
21 MR. NASH: One thing that concerns me a little oit 24 is I think the memoers of the public that are concerned 23 aoout nuclear power plants, to express their views seem to 24 oe disturbed about this, that wnen you start new construction 2a and then it looks like it's already late to do anything.
O
&_)
39.04.14 65 grNg i But there are -- I guess the question about how
}.a_f /
2 reprasentative they are and, for example, quite oftsn in the 3 limited appearances at a hearing, members of the local 4 community, and f airly typically, these will be members of 6 laoor unions, will get up and say, this plant is a great thing 6 and we .ought to start construction right away.
7 They don't perceive any particular problem with 9 the i mmediate e ffectivene ss.
9 So I just don't know how you deal with that.
10 MR. MILHOLLIN: I tried to be f airly cautious in 11 my wording. I said I mentioned memoers of the puolic who 12 participate in licensing. And I also added, causes memoers 13 of the public to question the integrity of the licensing (D j 14 proce ss.
i 16 I 'id not say most members of the puolic. And so 16 I recognize .. at we don't know becaus e we haven't polled the il puolic, how many members of the puolic are concerned about IS immediate ef f ectiveness.
19 MR. KARMAda You could put down these memoers of tne 23 p uoli c .
21 MR. MILHOLLIN: We know some members are.
22 MR. NASH: Certainly.
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Any other comments?
24 (do response.)
25 MR. MILHOLLIN: As I said oefore , I will try to (s
o)
1 D9.04.15 66 gphs I get the results of the interviews with the commissioners back (hs-) 2 to you as soon as they've been approved. And I will do my 3 best. If the interview with Commissioner Gilinsky goes f orward 4 as. scheduled, I will try to get that out as f ast as I can 5 next week. So you will have it before our final meeting this 6 month.
t There is a meeting by the commission this af ternoon, 8 I understand, on possibly changing the immediate effectiveness 9 on an interim basis. l 10 Is that appropriate?
i 11 MR. OSTRACH: There's going to be a commission ;
12 meeting this af ternoon to discuss licensing in the next l
13 few months. These are continuations of meetings they have l 14 ceen having with Mr. Denton. It's possible that at that time
\
( !
15 there may be some discussion of interim modification or 16 acandonment of the present system for effectiveness of ;
il licenses, either oy interjecting the commission into the 13 process at an earlier stage, or by modifying the i mmedi at e 19 e ff ec tiveness rule.
23 Tnat meeting is scheduled for sometime this 21 af ternoon, 2 00, I oelieve. -
22 MR. KARMAN That's anticipating that there may in 23 the immediate future be some licenses issued?
24 MR. OSTRACH: Well, the focus of the meeting is to 26 decide if tnere are to De licenses issued, if there is to De
((O -/ .
. m . . _ _ __ . . - . ._. - _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ .-_ _.
- 39.04.16 67 rg i licensing activity at all, and if there are to be licenses c t,
. ha. 2 issues, and if so, under what procedural system?
3 MR. KARMANs I see.
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: I plan to coserve that meeting and !
5 os present in case my views should be requested on any of 6 the subjects which are discussed.
i We crought up but didn't explore the p :sibility of 8 having a standard approach to Item 5 of George Sege's outline 9 of applying the options to the various case write-ups.
10 Do you have any views on that subject?
11 MR. OSTRACH: Ted and I worked yesterday trying 12 to write up Section 5 of the Seabrook thing, and I nave a I
. 13 f eeling that the proce ss people are going to go through and b ( ,/ 14 try in their own minds to discern what the raally. salient
\
16 issue s were in the case, and then certain options will 13 ooviously be inapplicable.
11 You can just say that certain others would have j 13 oeen potentially applicable, but wouldn't have oeen of any 19 nelp and sortie might have been of some help.
20 And I don't know if you can really get beyond that.
21 I don't think that we can subformat that section. George's 22 outline has oeen very helpful to give us case studies, out 23 I tnink that beyond saying tnat you should try and identify 24 what the critical issues were and tnen try f or the most 25 obvious options against those and make some general comments.
4
@9.04.17 68 grA I At least we couldn't see any way of breaking it
'km-)
. 2 down into a more structured approach.
3 MR. FRYE Karl and I took a somewhat different 4 approach to it. We went through 2, 3, 4, and 5 and tried to 5 say, well, now if this particular option had been in effect, 6 what would have happened?
i And so you get down to things like Option 4-A, 8 allcwing immediate effectiveness for LWA but not CT at 9 Catawba, would have delayed construction by 16 months. It 10 would have delayed or required a halt of the LWA 2 stage 11 at Cherokee for almost a year and be up to some dollar limit.
12 We said in Catawee that they expended a total of sl30 13 million oy the time the ALAP 355 was rendered and $40 million
() ~
14 16 of that was related to this. By the time of ALAP 426, it would have been $250 million total, s130 million of which 16 was a t the site.
14 And we just approached it in that way.
18 MR. MILHOLLIN: You just went option-by-option?
19 MR. FRYEt Right. S ome of them ooviously idn't 20 applyi some we've got some questions about. But at least ons 21 I will have to go back and see if we can do anything with it 22 or not.
23 Option 2-A is going to delay effectiveness oy 10 24 or 15 days and we said that would have a negligible effect 23 -in oa th cases, 3 and C. We knew that there were no stays filed l
l ('
L l
. . _ - . -. . - - . - . . . . . . .. . -- _ ~ . . . . - . . . - _ . - _ . --
39 . 0 4. I 8 69 gsh I no stays requested.
'r 2
3 4
5 6
, I i
8 9
I 10 .
~
11 12 13 14
\
i la-V 16 le 13 19 20 21 22
, 23 1
24
- a. -
25 4
M l
1
i r
4' l
839 05 01 70 ,
S te f i Then the. appeal board ruling on the merits would !
(\ss/ '
2 have delayed this case by 15 months or 24 months at Catawba, 3 because there were two decisions, and at Cherokee by 25 4 months.
5 MR. MILHOLLIN: Assuming the decisions would have 6 -taken the ~ same amount of time. j 7 MR. FRYE Yes. Tha t's. a big a ssumption, t oo .
6 MR. MILHOLLIN: You don't know the answer to -
9 that. So until the Commission rules on the. merits on (e),
10 we won't have that.
11' What about that as a format? 1 12 ,
MR. OSTRACH: I don't think it is significantly 13 dissimilar in eff ectivene ss to the one Ted and I proposed.
O' 14 Eacn of the options will be discussed specifically or lumped 16 toge ther in a category. And perhaps Seabrook is unusual.
16 There are certain obvious f acts about the case that leap out I
17 at us, and by identifying those as the critical issues, we
]
le are able to say that a lot of the options clearly wouldn't .
lY have been of any use one way or the other.
20- For example, the EPA reversals; all of the options 21 dealing with limited ef f ectiveness or limited time before .
22 eff ec tivene ss began, or waiting until certain Commi ssion 23 decisions -- really have no connection with the timing of 24 the EPA proceeoings. They just wouldn't have had -- I mean, 25 they would have had a delay eff ect, but they wouldn't ,
1
S39 05 02 71 JOte I have done anything toward resolving the problems, perhaps '
2 that's the dif ference between what John's doing and what 3 we're coing. We tried to isolate what we thought the 4 problems in the case were and tried to see whether the 5 options would have had any relationship to those problems.
6 And many of the options just don't deal with those issues, 7 and so we kind of dismi ssed them ou t of hand. :
i 8 But I think I will have to look more carefully at V each of the options before I can decide how we treated each 10 of the options, before I can decide whether more or John's 11 structure shoulc be put into it.
12 MR. FRYE There is a big difference, I.think, 13 between the thing that Carl and I did and Seabrook, in that
' V) 14 Seabrook had a.11 sorts of problems and neither of these ;
l 15 cases did.
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: Also, you might say that some of ;
l 17 the options f or interlocutory review would hav,e been usef ul.
18 MR. QUAY: We certainly did. I l
19 MR. MILHOLLIN: I don't know whe ther that would !
l 20 apply to your case or not.
21 MR. FHYE: Not really to these, I aon't think.
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: To Midland,'it might well.
23 MR. FHY E It might. I suspect not. l l
24 The only problem that was raised on appeal in i 25 Midlano was of quality assurance and that was cealt with ,
839 05 03 72 o
t ite i by the appeal board. Because of the peculiar f acts in D 2 Midland, the only reason there was a problem -- they were 3 aware of a problem -- was because there had been 4 construction going on and there was a record of quality 5 a ssuran ce .
6 At the time they issued their quality assurance 7 decision, construction had been halted for a substantial 8 period of time.
V MR. MILHOLLIN: In Midland, did you also have the 10 effect of various decisions on the regulations, the S-3 and
.l l so forth? ,
12 MR. FRY E Yes. Yes, it did come into play, but 13 tha t was af ter the remand f rom the D.C. Circuit. )
) l
.d 14 MR. MILHOLLIN: As I recall, it was i
\.
15 extraoroinarily complex, all of the diff erent reasons why 16 you can or can't oo something.
17 MR. FRYE Basically, it started out there was --
le they started construc tion with existing regulations at that lY time. They got a construction permit that got appealed.
20 The a ppeal board, as I said, entered an early decision on .
21 quality assurance because they were concerned about the 22 record that had been made on that subject, and attached some 23 condi tions to the permit.
24 It then issued a second decision, which affirmed 25 the rest of the ini tial decision. There were then a d
su /*b
939 05 04 73 f e i series of appeal board decisions that had to do with 2 compliance with the conditions that the a ppeal board had put 3 on the permit relative to quality assurance. There were 4 some collateral things that were also popping up in there.
5 They eventually, at some point -- and I'm not sure 6 when -- finality attached to what the appeal board had 7 done. And another quality assurance matter popped up, and 8 the appeal boarc wrote the director of regulations and said, V you've got to do sometning about this.
10 He issued an order to show cause. There was then 11 a snow cause proc eeding. The result of that proceeding, the 12 licensing board's decision was affirmed by the appeal 13 board. Everything was f airly quiet until the D.C. Circuit O
s
\s / 14 handed down its decision remanding Midland and invalidating 15 fuel cycle.
16 We then wen ~ c' ack into an extensive hearing on 17 whether the permit hearings should be conditioned or le suspencea pending resolution of the issues remanded by the ly' D.C. Circ ui t. The decision was issueo not to do that. Tha t 20 was affirmed.
21 The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit, which 22 in effect said we didn't have to do all of that in the first 23 place. And that is pre try much where it stands right now, j 24 with the exception that there is still a collateral matter 25 growing out of that remanced proc eeding which is still d
-D39 05 05 74 h i pending.
fe ;
2 MR. OSTRACH: I don't see why you would have any 3 problems with tha t.
4 You lef t out one step, by the way. After the j 5 appeal board's decision on the merits, there was a lengthy 6 Commission meeting on energy conservation that came up 7 before the case went out.
8 MR. FRYE Yes, I did leave that out. The I 9 Commi ssion had ruled, in Nine' Mile, that energy 10 conservation should be considered as an alternative to this 11 facility. . And Cherry, having tried .to raise that in the 12 Midland proceeding, then tried. to get the case reopened on 13 tha t issue. And the Commission turned him down.
s O 14 MR. MILHOLLIN: I would think it would be fairly 15 simple to apply the options to that case, John.
16 (Laughter.)
17 MR. KARMAda You see why I'm sending my son to law 18 scnool.
IV (Laughter.)
20 MR. MILHOLLIN: Are there other matters which 21 anyone would like to discuss this morning? l 22 MR. CHO: Will you review for us how you expect to 23 proceed f rom here on out in completing the re port?
'24 MR. MILHOLLIN: I'm assuming that we will have 25 just about all the rough draf ts done by next time, by our s.J
839 05 06 75 TNte i next meeting, which will be at the end of this month. And
'i 2 then I think it's going to be nece ssary to sit down and put 3 them toge ther.
4 In my own mind, I guess I haven't confronted the 5 problem of making an administrative schedule to do that. I 6 was planning to come to Washington for a solid week in early 7 October, either the first or second, whichever is the most 8 efficient, to just be here during the process of putting it V together.
10 But I haven't thought about whether we should have 11 a series of subgroup meetings or just how we should 12 structure it. I am open for suggestions.
~~ 13 DR. CHO: I s.ee a tremendous task at that
\_ /
~
14 particular point, to get, I suspect, a lot of disjointed 15 parts -- when I say disjointed, I don't mean nece ssarily in 16 substance, but in the way it's written and things that cover 17 a lot of perhaps overlap and things like that. It will le require an ef f ort by one or more people, I think, si tting 19 together, to coordinate and put the whole package together.
20 And I would perhaps suggest that maybe a group be 21 a ssigned where they can perform that task.
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: George has sort of volunteered to 23 be available to do tha t thing, since he is light this month 24 witn assignments. He has agreed that next month he will 25 have some free time to do that sort of thing. And I am m
1
339 05 07 76 y fe 1 expec ting a rather busy month of Cctober for myself. Beyond 2 t ha t, I think maybe we probably could use some more help. I 3 think that is a good suggestion to the group, to do that.
4 John Frye presumably would not be a member of the 5 group, since his job -- he has already done an enormous o amount of work. And also Bill Lovelace, also.
7 Any other suggestions about timing and so forth? '
8 (No response. ) j 9 MR. MILHOLLIN: How are your schedules for 1
10 October? Is anyone not going to be here during the first l 11 two weeks in October?
12 MR. BERSON: I might possibly not be here during s 13 the first week of October. They're considering sending me V 14 to a course.
15 MR. MILHOLLIN: I'm assuming most of our work is lo going to be done by the middle of October. We will have the 17 thing pre tty much in some kind of final shape. I t may be le ro < , shape, but we will have it in some kind of final shape IV by ae middle of October. Maybe that is too optimistic.
20 Wha t do you think, John? Do you think that is too 21 o pti mis tic ?
22 MR. FRYE It may be somewhat optimistic. Me've 23 got a lot of inf ormation to deal with.
24 I s your plan, I suppose, to take the draf ts and 25 try to put the draf ts together in some sort of a draf t
^
/ \
d
339 05 08 77 P'~'ht e i final report, with conclusions that would then be 2 circulated, and we would all ge t toge ther and argue about 3 the conclusions?
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: We will all have to get together
- 5 and argue about the conclusions at some point, obviously.
6 I'm not sure when that will be, because I'm not sure when we 7 will have all the information.
8 Theoretically, we wi.11 have it all by the 28th.
9 So I suppose that se ssion would take place some time af ter 10 t ha t.
11 MR. FRYE I think it would be unlikely we could 12 have it in such form as we could distribute it to everyone 13 and give them a chance to review it before we met on the
~
14 28th.
15 MR. MILHOLLIN: I don't think we could do it on i 16 the 28tn. We would have to do it some time in the fi rst
- 17 couple of weeks in October, I'm a ssuming.
16 DR. CHO In my own mind, I project around the a
'Y middle of October, given our tasks for the 28th.
20 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, what if we assume on the 21 26th that we have all of the raw material for our report.
22 Then I guess I would say that we should try to start 23 hammering out conclusions in early Oc tober, so we have them 24 hammered out by the 15th.
25 MR. FRYE I was going to say, I think we have l
- .- -- = ._. _ _ - . .. .
839 05 09 78 "te 1 to have them hammerede out by the 15th or thereabou ts.
(*^A
\n, 2 DR. CHO Excuse me. I project at least a week, I 3 think, of putting all of the draft together into one.draf t 4 final report. And perhaps we could even have tentative 5 conclusions or, even absent the conclusions -- and following o that a general meeting at which the conclusions could begin 7 to be discussed.
8 MR. MILHOLLIN: Let me throw this out u. a 9 possibility. Suppose that we could manage to get out a 10 draft. Suppose we could manage to get out a document, that 11 we could put together all of tha raw materials sometime in l
12 the first week of October, in the first of October, and then 13 use that as a basis for making conclusions. Nhat do you O)
's 14 think about that?
15 It would be everything we have exce pt the lo conclusions. It would be the writeups 'of all of the 17 options, of the advantage s dna disadvantages, integra ting 16 into it the writeups of the individual cases. And then I 19 could give that to eve rybody. Everybody could have one 20 piece of pa per integrating everything we've put out so far.
21 And then we could begin working on conclusions.
22 Or would there be a better way to do it?
23 MR. FRYE I think it is important that we do have 24 a document like tnat, tha t brings everything together. It's 25 difficult to keep track.
~_.
@39 05 10 79 1
1 P9 te i MR. SEOE I certainly agree with that.
2 MR. QUAY: Then we all know what we're working 3 from, at least.
4 MR. FRYE The other thing that it seems to me 5 would be helpful -- and I don't know if we have time for it I I
l 6 -- is to the extent that we can, assuming this particular 7 document doesn't state any tentative conclusions as to a 6 point of de parture, it is probably very helpf ul f or those of Y us, if we have time to do it, for each individually to put 10 down what conclusions we think ought to be drawn and give i I 11 every other member of the group the opportunity to look at 12 it before we get together and talk about it.
13 I think iti s awfully difficult, particularly with
's) ,
. s,,/ 14 a lot of diff erent documents, where we've just gotten that 15 information.
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, what about the second week 17 of October for drawing conclusions?
le DR. CHO You mean the end of the second week?
IV MR. MILHOLLIN: No, to use the second week for 20 m ee ting' at the end of which we could come up with 21 conclusions. Or is that too late? I'm just worried that if 1
- 22 we do it the first week it is going to be very difficult to 23 get the inf ormation we're going to receive on the 28th in a 24 form which is usable over that weekend.
25 MR. QUAY: You have to do that the first week. I
339 05 11 80 YNte I think you have to get it in usable form over that first 2 week.
3 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes. I'm a ssuming that can be 4 done with no difficulty. We could get the information in a 5 usable form during the first week, and get it to everybody, 6 which is why I'm suggesting the second week for meetings on 1
7 conclusions. And I a ssume the first part -- I mean, ,
1 8 starting on Monday of the second week. I 9 And John, I guess your suggestion, which is that 10 we circuiste our own conclusions before the meeting. We 11 could be working on those as soon as we get everything on 12 the 28th. Each of us will have a stack of documents. It 13 might .not be put together, but we'll all have it, and we 14 could start working on our own tentative conclusions then.
15 Maybe we could pass them out during the first week, so lo everybody could have tnem at least over the weekend, and 17 have them available curing the beginning of the second .eek 16 to work from.
19 MR. FRYEs That sounds fine.
20 MR. SEGE: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we M may need a second go-round meeting on the conclusions, ha ve 22 a debating and discussion, sort of a'go-rouno in the second 23 week of October, as you suggests and then have them written 24 up crisply, based upon that discussion; and then meet again 2b to reach agreement on the specific language of each and
/ \
M 4
1 339 05 12 81 l
a Ihte 1 every conclusion and recommendation that would be in the 2 report.
3 By that time, the general nature of our 4 conclusions and the general nature of our recommendations 5 will be clear. But there are always problems when this gets 6 reduced to specific language, and that perhaps could f ollow I
7 like one week later, like the third week in October. And l e that needn't be a very long meeting by that time s maybe in a 9 few hours.
10 MR. QUAY: Early in the third week?
l MR. SEGE: Well, I wouldn't venture to estimate '
11 12 that precisely at this time.
-s s 13 MR. QUAY: What are you planning f or reproduction .
'N- 14 on this thing, or getting it to the Commission? You know, i
15 typing and all of that stuff just can't be done overnight.
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: I know. And George's suggestion l 17 is a good one, and it implies that there will be a period 9" le between the first and second meeting Jn which we're going to lv have to change language and get it in a form which everybody 20 can sit down and say, yes , tha t is what we mean.
21 MR. FRYE Woulc it be feasible to a pprove 22 everything but the conclusions earlier on, and get that into 23 the administrative typing process, and leave the 24 conclusions, which logically I think would be the last part 26 of the re port, until later? Lo you think that would be a C
1
339 C5 13 82 l
trt e 1 f ea sible approach? It might save us some time ;
' Q ,)
2 aoministratively. ;
l 3 MR. MILHOLLIN: Certainly some parts of it could 4 be, the introduction, the legislative history, the decision 5 criteria, the writeups of the individual cases with the
-6 charts and all of that. All of that could go into the l 7 reproduction network.
8 MR. QUA( Well, we could do what John says, put 9 it in final f orm and have agreement on it. l
)
10 MR. FRYE By the 28th or shortly af ter the 28th, 11 we will have a draf t of the bulk of the re port. And a t that 12 point or as soon as we have gotten that, we could make what
.s 13 changes should be made and approve it, and put that in
(,,) 14 final. And that could get into the administrative process 15 of typing and reproduction earlier in the month that way.
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: Good suggestion.
17 MR. OSTRACH: Do we have the services of some le typing service? We are talking about a document of a couple ,
19 of hundred page s. We couldn't have one of our secretaries 20 assigned to type this thing.
21 MR. SEGE: I think that Kre ss would be an 22 excellent place to take it to.
23 MR. OSTRACH: I haven't used their services.
24 MR. SEGE: I have, and they are very good.
25 MR. NASH: Iney need to have some advance notice.
l 1
[N I l
_ . ~ - - . . - - . - . - . - . . _ _ . - . . - - . - . - . _ _ . - . - . . . . _ - . - - . - _ - - . .
l
$39 05 14 83 PNte 1 MR. SEGE: Yes. It would be good to let them in 2 on this a couple of weeks ahead of time.
3 MR. MILHOLLIN: Could you take on that 4 responsibili ty, George?
5 MR. SEGE: Sure. And in due course, it might be 6 well to find one or two Commi ttee members whose offices are 7 in Bethesda to follow Kress. It would be a little difficult 8 to do from H Street or'from' Wisconsin Avenue. I mean, the V day-to-day sort of f ollow-u p.
10 MR. KARMAN: I will be glad to ride herd on them, 11 MR. QUAY: I think some of us are closer than you, 12 Myron.
,- 13 MR. KARMAN: Fine.
14 MR. MILHOLLIN: So you will monitor Kress?
15 MR. QUAY: Yes.
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: I will agree with John Frye's 17 suggestion that we try to ge t this information portion done 16 early and approved in final, which means all of the other 19 preliminary introductory matter that anyone is going to 20 prepare.
21 DR. CHO I just want to comment that I agree with 22 John's general a pproach, but I'm not sure we nece ssarily 23 need to a pprove it in final. I do see the potential 24 relationship between the finsi conclusions and some of the 25 a spe c ts . We want to make some changes. But I think in O
1
)39 05 15 84 l
l '(/
I' le I focusing first on the informational material, I think 2 necessarily most of that will remain intact in the end. But 1
3 I'm not sure we ought to f ormally approve the early parts 4 before we get to the conclusions.
5 MR. OSTRACH: I think the intent is to approve it 6 so we can have extensive bulk typing done, so we will know 7 what's page 23 and what's page 24.
6 MR. SEGE: Approve it f or typing, rather than for 9 printing. And then, if the conclusions and recommendations 10 make us reopen some of the pa ssage s, to rewri~te scmething 11 differently, to fill a late-discovered gap or to phrase an 12 argument differently, the percentage of pages affected would
- s. 13 presumably be f airly small, and Kress should be able to
( \
\~/ 14 accommodate that much more easily than a big typing load 15 starting from scratch at that late date.
16 MR. fries George, do they have the modern 17 equipment that uses tapes and tha t sor t of thing, so it's le easy to make changes?
19 MR. SEGE: Yes, it is easy to make changes.
20 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, I take it, then, that the 21 first week woula be too early for our hammering-out session.
22 DR. CHO: I would say yes. The earliest woulc be 23 the second week.
24 MR. MILHOLLIN: Because of the need for a 25 comprehensive first araft to work f rom and the ability to
! [ T N.j
839 05 16 85 i put that together.
)l, .,'w -}te 2 MR. KARMAN: I think that's right.
3 MR. MILHOLLIN: Could we schedule our first debate 4 and discussion session for Monday of the second week?
5 MR. FRY E I think that is a holiday.
o DR. CHO: I would say probably Wednesday of that 7 week would be a good day.
6 MR. SE0E: Yes, Wednesday or Thursday. Wednesday, Y with the idea that we could continue into Thursday and 10 Friday.
.11 MR. MILHOLLIN: Wednesday and Thursday? Okay, 12 Wednesday and Thursaay. What are the date s?
, ~s 13 MR. FRYE The loth and.llth.
- 1
/ \s / 14 MR. OSTRACH: Mr. Chairman, we have a meeting 15 scheduled f or tne 28th, correct?
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
17 MR. OSTRACH: And are we going to have a meeting 18 the first week of October?
19 DR. CHO No.
20 MR. OSTRACH: That's just going to be subgroups 21 working on putting this together? So the following meeting 22 will be on Wedneasy the 10th?
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
24 MR. OSTRACH: And I'm speaking now in terms of 25 phrasing ine Feaeral Hegister notice. Why con't I just'
,,3
\v
839 05 17 86
/
7'~'$te i stay at that time, that the se ssion will begin on Wednesday 2 the 10th and will likely extend through Thursday, into 3 Thursday and perhaps Friday.
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
5 MR. OSTRACH: We will just make it a continuous 6 session.
7 MR. MILHOLLIN: All right. On Wednesday, we 6 should be able to approve some of the informational J 9 portions, so they can be released for proce ssing, wouldn't 10 you think?
.11 MR. OSTRACH: Oh, ye s.
12 MR. FRYE Hopefully, yes.
, 13 MR. MILHOLLIN: We can make that our first order
\,, 14 of business. So on Wednesday we could hope to have a chunk 15 of it released for processing.
16 MR. QUAY: Are you assuming that some time prior 17 to, let's say, the Friday a week before or Tuesday or IS something, having a portion mailed out to everybody?
19 MR. MILHOLLIN: I'm assuming that once I ge t in my 20 hands everything, that I will figure out some way to get 21 everyboay a draf t by the middle of the first week in 22 October.
23 MR. QUAY: Maybe not that soon, bu t a t least by 24 the end.
25 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes. That will depend upon the h, --- v y
@39 05 01 87
] fe i problem of getting it to Washington f rom Madison.
l 2 MR. QUAY: Those meetings will be here? l 3 MR.-MILHOLLIN: Yes. 3 4 MR. QUAY: Because we have to go how many months 5 in advance, John, to schedule this room?
o MR. FRYE I was just pointing out to Steve that l 7 he has some groundwork to do before he publishes this.
1 8 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. So we are on for the 10th, 9 litn, and 12th. I promised you some kind of integrated 10 draf t curing the previous week, and we have agreed that i 1
j !! we're all going to begin working on our tentative 1
12 conclusions f or circulation to members of the group -- of
- 13 course, we can a.11 begin those any time -- and that between
[\ssM 14 now and the 28th, we will try to complete work on the items 15 in the outline which are not completed yet, the various 16 options, discussing the optionst and that we will complete l
17 ou; Aiiteups to the extent that they are not already done.
la MR. KARMAN: This is all by the 28th?
19 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, because there ar'e some 20 sections which ale not comple ted, principally the options 21 section. But we will do a writeup of the Bailly case for 22 acoition to the report. And that is about it, as I recall.
23 MR. OSTRACH : Mr. Chairman, with the interim 24 report we attachec a very bulky supplement of background 25 material. Do you think it would be worthwhile if, out of O
LJ
l 339 05 02 88 l f"^'it e 1 the welter of documents that we have circulated, many of
\j 2 which will be used as groundwork in the final report but 3 will not appear in the final report, some selection was made 4 for purposes of at least ensuring that appears in the record 5 that's being kept? !
6 I have, f or example, in mind these interviews. I 7 don't know if these interviews are being kept in the docket, 1
8 the interview reports.
Y MR. MILHOLLIN: They haven't been placed in the 10 public document room yet.
11 MR. OSTRACH: I.just thought that perhaps, when 12 you are putting together the informational section of the 13 final report, that you might just get whatever other Ov 14 documents you think might be ushf ul for supplement or just 15 to be included in the docket, and just bring it to my 16 attention, and I will give them to the docket services. And 17 of course, if anybody else thinks that any particular 16 documents that we have distributed would be well put in to 19 and make sure they are pu t in the record, I think that 20 should be brought to, I gue ss, my a ttention. I might as 21 well do tha t.
22 For example, just one that I have in mind is this 23 very helpf ul chart we had or the table we had discussing the 24 c har ts today. I think that should be in the record.
25 MR. SEGE: A related matter is a question of O
d
339 05 03 89 Pte .I what we include in appendices to our final report. And we 2 should be shooting f or decisions on that subject by about 3 the first week in October, also. So it is going to be 4 f airly bulky, a f airly bulk production job. We ought to 5 start ge tting things in such shape to get them produced and 6 give the reproduction people a reasonable time to do that 7 Job.
8 MR. MILHOLI.IN: I think we will be able to decide '
9 that when we put together our first draf t. I assume also 10 that we will all look at the papers we have received today, 11 and if we have comments on them we will transmit then to the j 12 authors of the documents. And the chart people are going to ,
13 get together with a view toward integrating the charts. Any !
) 14 possible discrepancies or gaps which may occur in one chart 15 we assume will be filled in by the other one.
16 It seems tc me it would be a good exercise to put 17 these two charts together, because if the charts are 16 inconsistent with each other, then the chances are that 19 something would have been caught which might have gone I
20 uncaught had they not been put toge the r.
21 DR. CHO: And also, we want to compare them with 22 the narrative in individual cases.
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, tha t would be a good f 24 exercise, for the writeups to be checked against the charts.
25 DR. CHO Or vice versa.
p
~
%)
t
l839 05 04 90 te 1 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, or vice versa.
l )("'l s 2 Well, any other matters today before we break up?
l
'3 (No response.)
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: I urge you again to circulate 5 materials as soon as you complete them,,so that we can begin 6 to think about where they go. And if we are working on by 7 individual statements of tentative conclusions, perhaps if I
4 4 8 we circulate our information items early, those can be done
[ 9 early as well.
10 Thank you and see you then on October the l oth --
11 or, excuse me, September 28th. i 12 (Whereu pon, a t 12:05 p.m. , the meeting wa s 13 adjourned.)
,, 5 14 15 16 17 16 IV 20 21 22 23 2 24 25 it a
_. _ . - . _ -