ML20204G592
| ML20204G592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/06/1979 |
| From: | NRC - ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION DURING ADJUDICATIO |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACCA, NUDOCS 9903260192 | |
| Download: ML20204G592 (69) | |
Text
- .. . . . . . - . . ._ . - . . -
0h
- /-
A -
. . ; i itp' i '
MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
. - 1 h -
1- .
,.e IN THE MATTER OF:- .
Fifth Meeting Advisory e-4 ttee on Nuclear Power Plant Construction during Adjudication
\ . .
3 Place,- Washington, D. C.
- Date - Friday, 6 April.1979 Pages 1 - 68 i
i -
2
- ) -
i f ((
11l l/
3Fco d / 7
- - (202;347 ._3700 k
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
.) . OfficialReporsers 444 North Capitol Street 9903250192 790406 PDR ADVCM NACCA NATIONWIDE COVERAGE. DAILY '.
. 1
- 18 1 . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,om/agb
- 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 .
4 5
~
6 Fifth Meeting i
- l 7 -
Advisory Committee on Nuclear 8 Power Plant Construction during 9 Adjudication. I 10 I .
11 1
12 Room 1167,
( 1717 H Street, N.W.,
\ .
13 Washington, D.C.
l 14 Friday, 6 April 1979 I
15 -
i
. i 16 The Advisory Committee met, pursuant to notice, l 17 at 10:05 a.m., Gary Milhollin presiding ,
18 PRESENT: I l
i 19 Gary Milhollin, Chairman I
Stephen Ostrach 20 John H. Frye Dr. Miller Spangler 21 William Lovelace l George Sege 22 William Parler '
i John Cho 1 23 Richard Ireland 24 ,
,k oderd Rooorters, Inc.
25
, l, i
2-3 l
L e bbbbbbkbbbb !
L
' 4gb1 2
+ -
l i
! MR. MILHOLLIN:, This is the fifth meeting of the l' <
3 g i study group on construction during adjudication. Today, the
- first item of business is to take up the Interim Report which 5
we hope to submit to the commission next week. .
. I'have gone through the draft from last time and 7 made the changes wh'ich were recommended. Perhaps it would be l
l
(* 8 a good thing for me just to take the old draft and the new one ,
. i and tell you what I did first, and then we can go through it ,
i 10 page by page, again,if you choose. ( ,
i
" I'll try to limit it to substantive changes.
l l
I l
12 First on Page Two, I r'ewrote the paragraph following 1 O 13 the list of names as we agreed. That was pretty much an
~
14 editorial change.
15 On Page Four, I revised -- Wait a minute.
On the bottom of Page Three and the top of Page Four, i
i 17 I changed t:he language to incorporate some suggestions by ,
I.
. 18
. Bill' Parlor and John Frye, and the-last sentence begins: {
I 19 "Our first task will be to discover whether ;
5
. 'o the present rules have, in fact, created problems, l
21 particularly where the construction has occurred l 1.025 during site-related issues."
- 23 And then it goes on to say that
- "
... Based on uhat we firid out from this task, that will I
25 r
aid us-in defining the scope of our succeeding ,
4 1
__ _ _ . __ . _ . ~ . _ _ _ _ . - . .._, _ _ ._ _ ._ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
, 4 I
52 tasks."
2 Is that pretty much --
3 That sounds good.
(-
l MR. FRYE:
i
- -- what you recommended?
MR. MILHOLLIN:
)
5 The next change that I made was in the options. In ;
6
- 3.3*you'11-notice Option 1 now reads no change in the present i I
system. Then in Item F on Option 3, it's been changed to read 8
for custom plants, a desi'gn definition, et cetera.
9 Then on Item H under Option 3, there was quite a bit 10 of discussion of this subject, and what I did was override 11 George Sege's recommendations and put the site has been 12 reviewed and received final Commission approval.
p-
{v 1
s 13 If George objects to that, we can talk about it.
i.
14 You'll recall we discussed whether that was too narrow-i a phrasing of that particular option. .
l
! 16 I don't want to press .that further.
1 MR. SEGE: .Yes. .
l I '
i MR. MILHOLLIN: All right.
i 1 -
'18 Then under A on Option 4, this was the seriea of l-I 19 options which we had some discussion on since they weren't -- j l
20 'Jince the meaning of the suboptions was not clear to everyone. f vie wrote the first one, A, we rewrote that to read as I have l,
22 it - there, " allow immediate effectiveness for LWAs ,only , not 3
for CP decisions."
(~S And I assume that fits in with what we agreed, does
- l ,
v., ., noon .. i .
3 ,
ri .
25 it not, George?.
j .
- 1 1
e j
.. - . - - = - . . . - -
i
l 5 l 1
1
/'N
, L_/1 1
MR. SEGE: Fine. ,
MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
3 "
l r ) Then under Option 7, we added Item D, ... expedite t
\
decisions on issues affected by construction during adjudica-i tion." That was a new item we agr,eed to add last time.
6 l-Then, in response to remarks by Bill Parler, I I
rewrote the paragraph following -- or added a paragraph following the options which appears now at the bottom o'f 9 '
Page Seven. ,
'10 The paragraph simply says we haven't ruled out any l l l '
11 l options and that we might decide to change or modify the
'2 1
options we have under consideration as work progresses, and then y
N' 3 13 it refers to the elements in Item Six of the Commission's 14 memo.
15 The next change occurs in -- on Page 11, the second 1 I i 16 l item under Item G where "at least the six cases mentioned i i
I 17 above compare the importance of delay caused by licensing 1
i.
18 to other delays and the uncertainties . caused by licensing to i i
19 other uncertainties."
20 This is in response to a remark which Miller made -
4 about his work plan. So I incorporated that in the second 22 item under Item G on Page 11. ,
DR. SPANGLER: Do you wish discussion now?
2' Cl) ,,
MR. MILHOLLIN: Sure. [
25 I might.say your work plan was longer than that, but .
I 4
6 r')
k / gb4 t I thought 'that that would be a way to ren' der the essence of 2
it without making it any longer than it already is.
3l DR. SPANGLER: Well I think it captures the general 4
essence of it. My problem with this is that in communicating 8 specifically to cooperating utilities, one ought to have a l' more specific formulation of the proposition rather than a more' 7
. general one.
i MR. MILHOLLIN: 'Oh, I agree.
1 9
DR. SPANGLER: So if it is just for reporting to the )
i i 10 I Commission, I have no problem. l i
11 i MR. MILHOLLIN: This is just for the purpose of a
12 reporting to the Commission.
{}' 13 DR. SPANGLER: -- with that general characterization.1 i
14 l MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Fine. .; t l l DR, SPANGLER: I have a similar problem with regard i
16
-- and perhaps this-one we ought to discuss a little bit ]
17 '
more -- it's the last item just before H on the next page.
- Now I've consulted with Bill Lovelace on this matter 19 of whe :her an LWA could extend for as much as a year before 20 f I you begin a CP, and he says yes, that it is possible and it 21 even may be more likely in the future than at present, I don't i
22 '
know.
l 23 At any rate, this is a hypothetical question. And A 24
(_/
A% rewd Rmomes. W.
let me say the philosophy of having two different times for 25 l! cps and LWAs was principally to have the utilities give us
!l t,
7a8 l .
l.(Jcgb5
("3 1 two separate answers for that so we could interpolate or 2
extrapolate from the data that they give us. I didn't want the 3l utilities speculating about these, you know, these time points, 4
because it would lead to a lack of uniformity among utility s
responses in these case studies.
l i - Could I just suggest how I would like to modify your I
sentence ind see if that would be objectionable to you?
MR. MILHOLLIN: 'Well this is really your sentence, 9
so you can modify it however you like.
10 1 i
DR'. SPANGLER: No, I think you had -- Excuse me, 11 1 I'll go back to my original sentence and compare it.
12 s' If you want to reinsert my original sentence,
' that's fine, then, I have no problem. I'll read my original i sentence, if you like.
15 MR. MILHOLLIN: Perhaps we coald.just change this i i6
' to read, "...a certain number of months of construction after ,
18
- i . DR. SPANGLER: No, that's precisely what I don't 19 want. I would like to have two points of time for these !
I 20 cost estimates, in order that we can interpolate or extrapolate, ,
i 21 and I don't want the utility to have it open-ended so they will ,
L s
come up with differing points of time.
l 23 1 MR. MILHOLLIN : This is just for the Commission's ,
i
[\ 24 '
purposes. We Can be a lot more specific.
)e edwd Reporters, Inc.
d 4 25 l' DR. SPANGLER: That may be, but this does have a i
i j way of getting around. . .I had only a very minor modification of i
. - - . . - - . . . . - .. . . ~. . . . _ . - . . . . - -
9 gb6 I your formulation.
t 2
MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
3
, DR. SPANGLER: -- which I don't think extends the 4 verbiage appreciably.
o 5
After the word "made" in the middle of that second 6 line -- that line reads, "
... site had been made...," and 7 .i would insert at this point an A in parentheses: "
...after 8 six months 'of LWA," and then I would insert "...or CP con-9 struction," colaa. And then after the comma insert end B, l
10 in paren, " .'. .af ter 12 months of construction following. . . ," l II and then instead of A insert "...an LWA or CP."
I2 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Fine.
13 DR. SPANCLER: Incidentially, I did get a letter from i Id Mkrk Messing about this. I had requested his input, just as 15
. I'm getting input from the utilities about these -- this !
16 format. And he did think that Question Eight, he had full 17 agreement with it. And I have had no problems expressed to I6 date from utilities about any of the eight items as originally I'
described.
20 Whether some will emerge, I don't know, but so far l
21 '
I've talked to middle level management, project managers and l
22 L
engineers who .likely would have the responsibility for 23 responding, and they seemed to find the questions made sense 24 to them-and seemed to be clearly stated. ;
'A_ ederd Rooorters, Inc.
25 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Fine. I i
[
I l
f 10 I'l 1 Let's see. Now then - .
(_/ 7b7 2 One more comment about Mark Messing.
DR. SPANGLER:
- ( I don't want to have the risk of taking his statement out of 4
. context. He fully. endorsed items number one through four and .
I s He raised some questions about the five, six number eight.
0 and seven, and I have responded to him along the lines of, 1
I you know, why we had two different assumptions for cost esti-mates to make a little bi't more understanding about our logic behind our questions.
- '10
- I don't want to imply for the record that he fully 11 agreed with everything. He did raise questions about three 4
'2 1
of them.
( -
13 The next change I made was in Item MR. MILHOLLIN:
14 J which we agreed upon and that was to say that we will assume 15 that at least one level of appellate review of some nature should (
a f '
16 continue to exist. .That's the last subitem under Item J. i 17 Then public participation was rewritten by Steven.
18 Then Item Six was rewritten by George.
. i 19 Then Item Seven is a recapitulation of the questions 20 we want the Commission to answer for us, or at least questions 1
21 which we would suggest to the Commission for the possibility c
22 ll of being answered. I notice there is a table in Number Seven,
'I I' 23 L j it should be 7.1.
t
(~T-j g ,,,m ,
I guess it's time now for other comments.
25 1 j MR. CSTRACH: Are we going to go through it in order?
4
\
11 l
[ -
1 I
058 I*have a number of. minor comments.
2 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Yes, why don't we just go -
l 1
i 3
! /" through it page by page then. l 4
MR. SEGE: I have someth'ing
- on Page Four. I
\
MR. OSTRACH: I have something on Page Three.
MR. CHO I have something on -- Excuse me. Just 7
-strike that.
l' l Page Three, progress to date has to be i
8 l
MR. OSTRACH:
9 updated indicating that we've had five meetings, and so I l i
l 10 1 suggest in addition to changing four to five, make the refer- '
! 11 ence to April 6 -- we add a sentence after the sentence about' i 12 the' fourth meeting saying at the.fifth meeting we approved 13 this report and discussed progress on the individual work l
14 assignments. I a'sume s that's what we're going to do today.
15 I MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
I 16 MR. SEGE: Then what it now says about the fourth 1 17 meeting -- j i*
18 MR. OSTRACH: Delete that.
19 MR. MILHOLLIN: Why don't you have charge of the l
!~ ,
20 i '
l master, then, Steve?
i 1
21 MR. OSTRACH: Then we have nothing on Pages One and i 9 165 Two, no typos? .
i 23 Back to Page Three?
]
1 MR. IRELAND:
) 24 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes. !
I A._. e ws n==nce,ix.i I t ;
i 25 MR. IRELAND: Just an observation. In the third line a
?
,s 12 I'T g
\ /59 it's menti >oned that in the first meeting we heard statements 2 from the public, which is true. . We also heard them in at least
~ 3 one other meeting, which is rot mentioned in this listing. ,
l 4 It's covered later, of course, that we have had them at other 8 i
5 It makes it sound meetings but it just kind of sticks out.
6
- as if we have only had comments at one meeting. .
I I
MR. MILHOLLIN: Your recollection is that it was the ,
O first two meetings that we had comments, is that right? I
' )
MR. IRELAND: Yes.
' DR. SPANGLER: The first and third. {
1 11 I MR. IRELAND: The first and third.
12 "At the third MR. OSTRACH: I can add the words: .
O 3 meeting we heard statements from the public" -- because there j
I -
14 were at least two people - "...and...," and then leave it as I 15 it is.
i 16
- l Page Four? i i
i 3
MR. SEGE: At the end of the second paragraph, ,
.,- " avoided." It should be " avoided them." i i
1 19 MR. MILHOLLIN: Page Five? ~,
20 On Page Five under Item A at the top, MR. FRYE:
I 21
. would it be clearer if we said: " . . 10 or 15 days to allow 22 l
the parties to prepare stay motions for the Appea,1 Board?"
23 i MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
2d MR. OSTRACH: Substitute " stay motions" for " papers."
Aw .-ederal Reoorm*. inc.
l 25 MR. FRYE: Yes. I E
13 1 l .
().cgb10 I MR. MILHOLLIN: Page Six?
MR. OSTRACH: On Page Six, Option 5, I think we want 4
3 to say " initial decisions," with an S.
1 MR. SEGE : A minor editorial under 4B. Perhaps we 5
l should use dashes like we do on Page Seven.
l
~
l . MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
7 MR. SEGE: To be consistent.
g MR. MILHOLLIN: 'Yes.
! 9 4
I i
Page Seven? l l
10 MR. SEGE: The statement about combinations is a littib 11 - -
unclear to me.
12 i MR. MILHOLLIN: Where are you reading from?
13 MR. SEGE: Page Seven, combinations. l i
MR. MILHOLLIN: Oh, yes.
15 MR. SEGE: It's a little unclear to me. I think it ! l a :
I I 16 would be clearer if,. after "suboptions and," we said "sub- l 17 I options from."
18 l
. MR. MILHOLLIN: I changed that ".and" because I ; l 19 t assumed you might want to also combine suboptions from one ,
20 option with other options , as opposed to just combining i
21 suboptions with suboptions. !
i i
? i 22 l MR. SEGE: Okay. I thought you may have wanted to do ,
I I l m
! that but I don't think it quite does it. I don' t think the l
(~+ y o,e n ,,,,, w,
- Ph rasing quite does it if that is the intent. We need some 4
! i 25 :
L 1.230 ,
further editing.
l I i
c i
14
()gbil MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. ,
2 MR. SEGE: How about saying: ' "many combinations are !
l possible of options and of suboptions from one or more of the 4
main options?"
5 MR. CHO: How'about something even more simple: '
l
- "many combinations are possible among suboptions and options?"
.DR. SPANGLER: That would do it.
~
MR. SEGE: It sounds good. l 9
MR. OSTRACH: Can we move the "are possible" to the ,
i 10 and of the sentence: "many combinations of suboptions and I 11 '
options.are possible?" I think it reads butter. So it reads:
i 12 "many combinations of suboptions and options are possible."
j
- O- 13 "
At the top of the page, the third line: ...are 14 appropriate for...," I believe the word "the" should be 15 deleted. -
16 I I MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, i 17 l MR. OSTRACH: I assume it is intended to be just .
18 Commission review and not Commission and Appeal Board review 19 i or Appeal Board review. l 20 Conceivably that could have been rewritten to provide 21 '
"the Appeal Board felt there was an important policy issue >
for it to address," but my understanding is that.that deals l
- only with the Appeal Board saying this is an important policy
- i 24 ;
,e,a n ,,,, %, j issue that only the Commission can review. .
~
25 .
- In Option 7C
- " Establish a mechanism...," I establish i
'!' l i
$f
i ~
. 15
)Tgb12 I " Establish a mechanism for Commission that be written: ,
2 monitoring of proceedings of lower boards." *
- MR. MILHOLLIN: How about: " establish a mechanism 4
for the Commission to monitor...?"
5 MR. OSTRACH: "
...for the Commission to monitor...'"
0 MR. MILHOLLIN: "
... proceedings by lower boards."
7 I would say "the proceedings bp lower MR. OSTRACH:
8 i boards or o'f lower boards'?"
MR. MILHOLLIN: "Of."
l 2
10 I would rather put in "of."
l MR.' OSTRACH:
- 11 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
12 MR. OSTRACH: " Establish a mechanism for the
- . ' 13 Commission to monitor proceedings of lower boards."
14 I also.have a substantive -- possibly substantive 15 suggestion at the very end of the page. We say we keep in l mind that the April memorandum asks us to pursue options which ' !
17 do not produce " undue damage to other regulatory objectives."
. Do we want to articulate what we understand those ,
- \
19 other regulatory objectives are, just even the broadest ,
'20 -statement, health and safety, efficiency and accuracy of the 21 administrative process, due process, rights of citizens?
MR. CHO: I don't think we need to elaborate at this 23 point.
gO, %,, % 24 ,
! MR. FRYE : I think at some point further down the i
. 5 25 i road. i
I ,
16 9
O x,bu ' =. On #CH: It ovens ue a can af - r .
l 2
MR. FRYE: I think until we know a little bit more t <
l r 3 about the problems we're dealing with perhaps it's best to )
\
4
. defer that.
5' MR. MILHOLLIN: I put that sentence in because it-
- ' came'in the statement by Bill Parler which John recommended l 7 It would be possible just to drop that
.we incorporate.
8 sentence out if you think it raises questions which we don't 1 .
I answer at this time. ,
I MR, FRYE: Ihavenoproblemwith'thesentencestayingl 11 in as written.
MR. SEGE: It's fine. (
13 MR. MILHOLLIN: Page Eight?
14 -
MR. CHO: I have one comment. At the bottom, 4.2, it ,
I says: "After we receive the Commission's, views on this !
16 I think we've already '
report, we shall beg.in gathering. data."
17 started that and it's not quite accurate.
f
' 0 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
li 19 MR. OSTRACH: Accelerate?
20 MR. CHO: Yes, I was going to say maybe we shall ;
i 21 accelerate our task of gathering data. l l
l MR. MILHOLLIN: " Accelerate our task of gathering data."
l i-23 MR. SEG';: And proceed with analysis?
l MR. MILHOLLIN: Well if we say that, then we don't ,
' i 2S i I tell them what our plans for analysis are, we tell them what i ll l 1
I l l
_, i
" j
~
17 1
()1 bl4 I our plans *for gathering data are so far which, to a skeptic, 2
might' imply that we really don't have any plans right now. l
)
r" - DR. SPANGLER: Mr. Chairman, I would hope that, following our disposition of the review of this interim report, j 1
5 that we spend a moment talking about our work schedule. ;
i
- MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes. I hope we can do that. I agree with that idea.
8 Perhaps at the end of the work plans on MR. FRYE: l 9
Page 14 we could include a statement that, once the data is l
I gathered, or once data gathering is well underway we will I 11 j proceed with analysis.
a 12 MR. SEGE: We say it on Page Eight.
'~ MR.' MILHOLLIN:
e We say it on Page Eight, I think, 4
- 14
! under 4.1. ,
h 15 Yes, we do you're correct.
16
.' - MR . SEGE: Mr. Chairman, in the middle of Page
(.
i 17 Eigh't , the middle unlettered paragraph: "Our work methods
! l i .
18 have included and will include...." It seems to me that should ,
19 1.310 be a new paragraph.
MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. Beginning with, "The work?" ;
i o
' 21 Beginning with "our." The first two MR. SEGE: !
22 sentences refer to what came before, the phasing. And then the J,; . ,
,, I i
i 23 "our work methods," that changes the subject quite substantially it ' 24
,fmed nooncs. irw.
and it should be a new paragraph. l N ; I is 25 I MR. MILHOLLIN: .You're right.
) !
o I i
e
...w.. . . . ,, .. , , ,- ,, , . -
i: ,* , ,
, 18 $
I Egbl5 Page Nine? ,
MR. OSTRACH: There should be a parenthesis after the
- 1 3
word " substitutes" in the first -- under B there's an opening I
, parenthesis before Seabrook and I suppose there ought to be a l
5 closing parenthesis after " substitutes."
O
. MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
1 I
NR. CHO: I have a question. Under B, for example, 8
the second ' item, we nientioned the ' rainbow books and we' l . I 9
mentioned OMPA; while this report is mainly for the Commission,,
i 10 !
l it also is for public information ani I wonder if we shouldn't l spell those terms out so that at least the members of the public will know what they are.
F DR. SPANGLER: We can handle that by an asterisk
~14 and a footnote?,
l 15 MR. OSTRACH : If we're going to spell it out, Iwouldf i t
16 rather do it in the text.- We have no other footnotes before :
I ' 17 f it. -
i 18
- . MR. MILHOLLIN
- That's a good suggestion. How could 3 i
19 l
we spell out those -- well, OMPA doesn't give me any trouble.
- MR. OSTRACH
- Do they have a generic name?
i 21 DR. SPANGLER: They do, and they have NUREG numbers !
and I have a pile of them -- ,
23 MR. OSTRACH: No, generically, the entire system of A erst Reconers, Rainbow, does it have a name that can be referred to?
25 '
j_ MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, shall we just make a note that t
n . . _
b ,~ ,
- - 19
' we're going to do that and postpone it?
( cgbl6 j 2
MR. LOVELACE: Why not call it management information i
r-3l system? ,
i 4
MR. MILHOLLIN: From the management information systems? ,
o 5
MR. LOVELACE: Yes.
l.
MR. OSTRACH: Small letters?
1 l
9 How about leaving rainbow books in l
MR. SEGE:
l !
10 parentheses after that so people would know what we're talking !i r
l l l 11 '
about? I 12 l
. MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
13 MR. OSTRACH: And they are compiled by OMPA?
I4 .
MR. LOVELACE: Yes, okay.
15 MR. SEGE : And spell out OMPA. ,
16 l, MR. OSTRACE: What is OMPA, management program i 17 i
analysis or planning analysis? ,
f Program analysis, managcment program MR. LOVELACE: .
i 19 analysis.
- i 20 Does WPPSS get spelled out? :
MR. SEGE:
21 I
MR. OSTRACH: No.
t MR. MILHOLLIN: No. .
231 Are we finished with Page Nine?
i Page Ten?
/~T 24 There's a typo in the second.line from the bottom 4 1 J6,3 nwo,,,,;i 25 It should be four cases.
l under E which we'll change.
' I
a .
20 O t Bage ll?
- b gbl7 -
2 MR. SEGE: Page'11, under G, the second dashed paragraph, the second line should be "importance" singular.
'MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
o Page 127
. (No response.)
7 Page 137 8 Th'e first line, maybe I'm stumbling:
MR. IRELAND:
" Determine where stay was granted."
l Okay. I was reading wrong.
I 11 Maybe we should add the word MR. OSTRACH: "of."
12 DR. SPANGLER: And a comma after "same."
O. n MR. MILHOLLIN: Page 14?
14 MR. IRELAND: The notation near the bottom of the !
i page that, "these plans are included in a. supplement to this 16 I report," I don't know what those are unless they are the t l
'l' memoranda plus the yellow sheet I gave you for mine, and I
~
. question whether it's appropriate to attach an appendix or ,
l 19 supplement to this report at this time. ;
20 Insofar as your work plan is concerned, MR. MILHOLLIN: 1
- l 21 I was planning to type it -- have it typed before we put it !
22 in the supplement, of course. .
23 It occurred to me that it might ba a good thing to O 74 have a separate supplement which could. include everybody's Aer2 Reporters, Inc. ,
25 I
' full work plan and perhaps some of the public statements or I l l
l
/ ,
21 i
'~
. (' ,Tjgbl8 1
probably all of them -- all the public statements, since they 2
aren't very bulky, and then whatever other things that Steve e and I in our discretion would pick out of the Public Document l
A Room. We plan to go through it later on today, and just put ;
- b 5
that together and have it separate from the report but avail-s 6
abic so if anybody wanted to look back through it it would be l
.! i 7
a handy reference.
- i But since 8 I'didn' t anticipate a very large document.
i I
i 9 there are things which do go beyond this distillation that i J nomeone might want to look at, itcouldbehandytohaveitin{ j i
< 11 a convenient form rather than forcing them to go down to the i 12 Public Document Room. j 13 Yes, I agree with that.
MR. IRELAND: I 4
14 MR. MILHOLLIN : -- and pick it up.
15 It would even be handy for us. i ;
MR. IRELAND:
16 f
MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes , it would be handy for us. ; ,
l I 17 Well that's what we had in mind and I was going to ask i IS and I simply today for authorization from the group for Steve l 4
19 to do that on our own after the meeting. f
~
20 i Is that agreeable? ,
t i
21 I l MR. IRELAND: Yes. :
1 22 (Indications of assent.)
23 1 On the matter of your work plans,
[1 MR. MILHOLLIN: ,
/~h 24 ' let's see, the yellow sheet you gave bd,5nsi peoonen, ane. I recall getting the -
- 25
- me, which I have right here. Is that it?
! l 4
,e 22 l gl9 MR. IRELAND: That's it. Except as I may be assigned 2
to collaborate with others on theirs.
3
- i MR. MILHOLLIN: All right. But I'm just thinking now 4
of the document you've given me, that's the only document you've
- f 5 I given me?
. 6 MR. IRELAND: Yes.
7 I MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay. ;
- 8 Any' other changes' on Page 147 9
(No response. ) i 1
l 10 Page 157 l This, as you notice, states generally what we have 12 received by way of public comment and it states that we decided 1 that neither of the proposals we received would aid the group, 14 at'least that was our preliminary judgment. They asked for the 3 1
i 15 l
. They asked for the Commission's guidance on whether ;
I
- I 16 we have authority generally to commit funds. We asked them for i
17 guidance on the extent of commitments. i ,
i 18 MR. CHO: Mr. Chairman, on the point you just covered
! 19 .
i l of having public workshops in letting contracts, I wonder if in 1
. 20 shouldn.'t be stated the way you just stated it now in terms of i 1
21 '
commitment of funds, rather than in terms of authority.
22
, MR. MILHOLLIN: You mean to say whether we have 23 l authority to commit funds to hold a public workshop? l
} cerei neoorvers, ne. MR. CHO: Yes. .
25 1 i MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, that's a good suggestion. ,
l i a ,
l.
l
23 I
hb20 MRs OSTRACH: Have the words "to commit funds?"
2 MR. CI'.0: Authority raises all kinds of questions. I 3
L 490 would imagine that it would come within the broad charter. I would so like to int;erpret the broad charter, anyway.
MR. MILHOLLIN: Any other changes on Page 157 0
DR. SPANGLER: I'm not sure just what change we're 7 I think what we ought to making as a result of John's comment.
O be asking from the Commission.is guidance with regard to the 9
exercise of our authority, just how far they want us to go in the 10 question of funding and so forth, or the direction they want l I
11 us to go in exercising this authority, the availability of fundsi 12 for travel and so on.
13 MR. MILHOLLIN: We do say, "The group members request ;
14 the Commission's guidance on whether we have authority, the 15 funds to hold a public workshop or have authority to let l I
16 contracts for particular tasks."
17 DR. SPANGLER: I thought John's point was that we l
18 4 already had the' authority. The question, maybe then is one of ;
1 19 i guidance. Perhaps we should just scratch the word " authority," ,
20 and put the concern about the availability of funds, what j funds will be made available.
i MR. IRELAND: We, as a study group, I would not think 23 i
would have the authority to let contracts in any case. We would, f3 24 '
A.
go through the Division of Contracts or somebody. So is this cer:;l Recorters, Inc. !
25 the appropriate choice of words?
. _ _ _., _ . .. . __ ._ _ ._ ~ - . _ _ _ _ _ . - - . . . _ .
^
.. . 24 I") 1 It isn't a question of whether they have
\ ^b21 DR*. SPANGLER: ,
2 the authority either. They 'already have' the authority, if funds are being made available, it seems to me.
- First if we want to do something we've MR. IRELAND:
2 3
got to have the funds available to us, and then we would have 6 to ev'aluate bids or whatever that we wanted to do and go throdgh, the Divisio'n of Contracts for the actual setting up of the I
8 contract itself, MR. CHO: That was part of my thought when I suggested ,
10 emphasizing the commitment of funds rather than the authority, !
1 i
11 because I think the actual authority to do some of these things l
('y may lie in other parts of the agency.
\-)
s 13 MR. IRELAND: Yes.
l 14 MR. MILHOLLIN: Shall we say: "The group members ,
15 request the Commission's guidance .on whether we may commit 16 funds?" Is that okay., and then that would take out the word ,
17 "
" authority. l
- MR. OSTRACH: So it would read, "whether we may commit funds," and then stay the same, "to hold public workshop."
20 MR FRYE: .There is a second authority in the next 21 line down, "...or have authority to let contracts."
22 MR. OSTRACH: Just take out " authority to," and leave I
23 .
it as "or to let contracts."
24 Ak Metal Reconm inc. '
MR. MILHOLLIN: "Or to let contracts."
That would make the sentence r'au:
25 ;l MR. OSTRACH: Right.
' - 25 ,
)gb22 I - "However, the group members do request the 2
Commission's guidance on whether we may commit
/
3l funds to hold a public workshop as part of our study or to let contracts for particular tasks if 5 we should subsequently determine."
0 DK. SPANGLER: Then I think the last sentence there 7 needs to'be changed if we do have such authority. ,
8 No, I think that authority is all right.
MR. CHO:
' I think in that context now such authority would refer back to i
l 10 \
whether we can commit funds.
11 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
12 Then I think your point, Miller, is covered MR. CHO:
13 "
by the last part of that sentence which says:
...and guidance .
I 14 in the extent of com!Pitments."
15 DR. SPANGLER: Why don't we -- if.we say, if we can !
16 commit funds, and keep it parallel to the original question t I
17 instead of using the word " authority." Do you see what I mean? {
l
. MR. MILHOLLIN: I think I vote with John. I like it i
19 the way it's presently written now. I think ' authority" refers j
' l 20 i l
to committing funds, doesn't it?
21 There's no ambiguity anymore.
MR. SEGE:
22 DR. SPANGLER: All right.
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Page 16?
24 l ,C,j,g ) MR. SEGE: I have something in.the second line from the I !
25 i bottom. We are, in fact, dealing only with power reactors.
i
i.+- . . - . - . . . . . . . . .
. . )'
26 (
(
I gb23 ~Maybe we should insert the word " power" in front of " reactors."
MR. MILHOLLIN: All right. That's a good suggestion.
! ' r' MR. CHO: Don't we need to include a question on workshops under our. summarization'of seven?
5 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, that's a good point. On Page 17?
0
- MR. CHO: Yes.
7
. MR. MILHOLLIN: So we would say, "having the group L*
i 8 fund workshops outside cont.ractors"' -- is there a general phrase we could use to cover the possibility that we might want to ,
i 10 fund something other than those two things?
11 MR. SEGE: Mr. Chairman, if we should hold a meeting, 2
a public meeting in the Seabrook area, and we do not hire a (x 13 contractor like Mitre or somebody to set up a workshop for us, 14 we just hold a meeting like here, we would not need any further 15 authorization from the Commission, would we, because that would '
l 16 I involve travel funds and our respective offices would be able i 17 to authorize those, isn't that correct? Is the problem of 18 committing funds confined only to the p.ossibility of hiring a l.
19 contractor to set up a workshop for us?
-20 Steve, aren't there other costs that are incurred in ,
21 holding a workshop? For example, rental of a hall, transcripts, 22 matters like that? I don't know that all those costs would automatically be borne by various Commission offices.
24
'x O .r.:
.o n.ooneri, ,
inc. MR. SEGE: The transcript costs we would have anyway.
25 If it is a public meeting like this, we would have the -- i I
I I
27 .
lh7b24 'I suppose we would have the additional cost if we hold a meeting 2
at someplace where we have to pay for a meeting room, like in a
- - hotel, there would be an additional cost there.
4 MR. OSTRACH: We would al'so have to duplicate statements -- if one member of he public wanted to make 6
. statements, we would probably have to duplicate those to dis-
. tribute to the audience. I think it might not be a significant 8
c cost but it 'ertainly cant hurt to ask for: the authority.
9 MR. CHO: I would imagine you would want to distinguish, I
i
.10 1 between a workshop, as we have in the body of the report, from l
.I 11 other types of contractors. For. example, those two organizations e- which submitted proposals to conduct certain aspects of the
(- ' 13 study for us, and I think that was the point I was trying to get.
i 14 l-at. We mention the study and we say we want guidance, but in l
15 our recapitulation, we don't mention that. !
I 16 I MR. SEGE: How about after the word "outside con- !
17 !
tractors," how about. inserting "for studies or for workshop ;
l 18 i
. management." j i
MR. MILHOLLIN: What I was going to suggest is saying s i leave open the possibility of having the group fund workshops
~
or outside contractors.
22 No, that doesn't do it, dces it. .
23 MR. SEGE: How about having an Item Number Three,
(~h g / , ,, , ,,,,,,, ,24, which would say something parallel about the workshop?
MR. MILHOLLIN: How about this, "having the group fund l
l i
8
/
28
()b25 outside contractors, workshops, and the like."
MR. FRYE: That's okay.
3
! / MR. CHO: All right.
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: I'm assuming the Commission is going 5
to make a general decision, which is to either give us I
! . discretionary authority to go ahead and commit funds for what 7
we' think is ne .:essary or not, and I'm not sure the Commission i is really going to care that much what we decide as long as 9
it's within the bounds of what could be expected, what do we ,
i 10 decide on outside contractors or workshops at meetings here l 1
11 and there, well I assume that's not going to be crucial to the 'i 12 Consission.
13 MR. SEGE: This sounds good now.
14 MR. MILHOLLIN: "Outside contractors, workshops, and .
the like."
16 f. t What about chancing " contractor" to " project?" The ! j 17 group has no project in mind at present.
. DR. SPANGLER: Or to " studies" maybe.
19 MR. MILHOLLIN: Projects could include workshops,
'
- I 20 :
contracts or a number of other things.
21 DR. SPANGLER: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that we .
l l 22 consider adding a third item,which might be appropriately
- entitled Other Budgetary Matters.
(~ 24 -
~
I had spoken to you privately, I believe, last week A m 3 a or m ,, w .,
25 I '
about the urgency of having travel funds made available from
! I
f .
29
( I this particular work assignment rather th'an from our offices Egb26 2 that we come from because our offices, at least mine, is strapped for travel money right now and probably will get worse 4
as a result of Three Mile Island. o 5 Juvi I haven't heard anything at all about what our 0
budget is for this. Obviously my salary is coming out of my present office. -But for travel expenses in particular and perhaps I
8 other incidentals related to case studies that we have agreed to
' do in-ho'use, we should have spe'cific ettention to these l l
10 1 budgetary funds being made available through this study office I i
l 11 rather than through our own individual offices. I 1
12 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well I guess my feeling would be" that )
O 13 that might be' a detail we might not wish to take up with the 14 Commission at this meeting, but that I could handle with -- l DR. SPANGLER: As long as it's handled I have no i i
i 16 concern, but it ought to be handled on a tL:.aly basis and with .
l 17 some formal disposition so that I have a memorandum or something 18 that when I, you know, or when each of us want to engage in t 19 some movement, there is somebody who is willing to sign an !
l 20 authorization for travel because this could get awfully tied 21 up if you have any irregularities at all associated with travel, 22 1 it can really throw a monkey wrench in the way of delays back 3 l
, 1 F
i~
23 L l and forth, communications with travel and so forth. I think ,
I 24 '
/~)
A\ cord hners. N it ought to be clearly established so that our buraaucracy
. l 25 can handle this with ease. ,
b '
i '
\
l _,
. . . _ _ ___ _. _ ._ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . - _ . . _ _ _ _ __. _ _- .._ . - _ _ _ . - . _= .
30 27 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well why don't you assume if somebody i 2 needs to travel, they can contact me and I'll get whatever 3
[
help I need to work it out.
I 4 j DR. SPANGLER: That isn't what I have in mind. I r o
'5 would sooner have it handled bureaucratically so that we don't i
6
- l. need to contact you other than if you want us to do it .for I
l permission. But I mean in terms of having a piece of paper L.-
that'we can show to Travel' or something, you know, to establish 9 '
the arrangement. i i
10 1 '
MR. MILHOLLIN: Well if anyone needs a piece of paper
]
11 l of that kind, why don't you talk to me about it and maybe we )
12 can arrange something. But I would be reluctant to bring it 13 (
up before the' Commission in this report. )
1 14 DR. SPANGLER: There's another idea related to this ,j j 15
- that doesn't quite come under the workshop or the contractor, l i
I 16 outside contractor label. Once we proceed with our case study 17 plan, it may be desirable to have the cooperating utilities .
' come together for a joint meeting to discuss things in order to ;
have a uniform approach or to, at that time, have an airing of f 20 problems and what have you with regard to the budgetary requests, I i perhaps maybe Chicago or St. Louis might be a midpoint of the 22
- country to conduct such a meeting. .
l 23 Or Madison, Wisconsin perhaps?
MR. MILHOLLIN: ,
24 DR. SPANGLER: I think Chicago would be better. l r, o,3 p ,,,, w, 1
t 25 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well I assume, then, we've made it l
,- - w , - . - ,
31
. i I kcgb28 t ~t hrough the report. Steve will be responsible for getting it 2
typed andl distributed to the Commission and to us, and he says i- '
L 3 i
r j he can probably do that by.the close of business on Monday, ;
l is that right? .
l e 5
MR. OSTRACH: I can get it typed by the close of 6
! i business on Monday and I'll put it in the mail service. My I
understanding is it will be sent directly to the Commissioners t
8 l as well as t'o the members of the study group at the same time, !
! 9 so what you'll be getting next Tuesday will be copies of the ,
I i io I' l
report that has been submitted to the Commissioners.
It will 11 also, by the way, have a cover memo to the Commission from l
Gary Milhollin, Chairman, subject -- you know, attached is 13 interin report of the study group, some sort of a cover memo 14 like that. And I would hope we could have it retyped today -
l 15 or next ' Monday so that the Commission will receive it either 8 l 16 late Monday or Tuesday.
17 f
MR. MILHOLLIN: As we just heard, we're on the ,
. Commission schedule for the 18th. If there's any change in that,
! 19 I'll let you know.
20 nu know what time we 're on the schedule, George, do ,
i I
for the 18th?
l 22 MR. SEGE: I'm sorry, I don't know but I can find out ,
21 during the lunch break and report back after lunch.
24 ,
~
t MR. MILHOLLIN: All right.
Es. cerei n coners. ine. I 25 ' '
I would like to make one suggestion, that MR. LOVELACE:
L I
e .
. '. 32 I we date this draf t the same as. we did on the other draf t, as of ,
/;b29
- '4/6/79, so that the two won't be confused.
3 e MR. MILHOLLIN: A good suggestion. This is the draft of 4/6/79.
It might be well now to move to the progresa reports, 0
unlesrs anyon'e has.another item that should be taken up first.
~
1C 1.780 7
-Dick, do you want to go'first and tell us how you're 8
- doing on your summary?
MR. IRELAND:
'l
- 10 I I have not gotten much further than I reported last time. I did attend a Staff meeting with Dom 4
11
_. Vassalo and his branch chiefs, and requested that they survey 12 )
their branches in order to pull together case histories or at '
O. i3 least identify cases which were candidates for case histories 1
14 for the study.
15 I have a partial identification at. this point. Un- .
l I
16 fortunately in the last week or so, I've been slightly diverted 17 from the main ' ream of that activity, along with a bunch of 18
. other people, so progress is a little slow at the moment but !
19 I hope to pick it up soon.
20 There is one question that does stick out that has been 21 I raised by a couple of fellows, and that is, in case histories, 22 are we interested in those cases where there has been a transfer 23 of ownership or a request for transfer of ownership -- there
.o.re n.oon.,,, ine.
apparently were two or three of these, I don't believe they :
. 25 have led to any complications in the process.
l
l /'
33 330 And I believe this new information that develops 2
during some period of time --
DR. SPANGLER: I know of our six case studies there are 4
two that I'm aware of where this ,is pertinent. One is Seabrook and the other one is the Palo Verde. . Perhaps there are others,
- 6
- I don't know.
1 7
Ml. MILHOLLIN:
How do you feel about that? Does 8 transfer of ownership seem'to be a --
1 9 It's certainly relevant in the sense that it MR. FRYE:
2 affects the issue of financial qualifications and. it affects 11 considerably also anti-trust matters.
12
- MR. OSTRACH: It might al'so possibly affect the
) 13 appropriate region for alternate site considerations. If, for 14 example, a utility had planned to own all the nuclear power l 15 '
plants and , subsequently it sold half of its interest to another 16 utility with ar much larger service area in a different part of the state--which is a situation I t1 'ght have occured with
' one of LILCOs plants which they sold half of to a utility which i.
19 that had a service ares upstate--an argument could be made' that
- i 20 !
at that point an entirely different range of alternate sites 21 should have been considered.
22 How about those MR. IRELAND: One step further.
23 instances where there has been a question about anti-trust?
A 24 '
Q)
As, cw.i n.oocm. ine. I have not touched those.
I understand there are some. I I
25 don't know whether they are pertinent in this kind of a study
34
~ '
(^T 1 !
( /cgb31 or not.
< MR. MILHOLLIN: John,'what do you think?
J
- r 3
MR. FRYE : My own personal opinion is that anti-trust is probably beyond the scope of what the commission asked us to study. I know Bill Parler at one point -- I'm sorry he's
- not here -- had raised the question of whether we should pose 7
that question to the Commission in our report, and he subsequent:.y g
seems to have abandoned it', so I assume he must also feel that a
perhaps 'it's beyond the scope cif this study.
, 10 There is, of course, the-requirement of the statute 11 that we have prelicensing anti-trust review, so that the 1
} 2 anti-trust review has to be completed before a construction
[ 13 permit can is' sue . ,
14 The system is designed in such a way as to hopefully,
' and I think now, as it is working, dispense with those issues 16 long before we get close to issuing a construction permit.
17 So it's not likely that that is going MR. MILHOLLIN:
18 a to have an impact, an effect of, on - ,is going to have an 1
~
19 impact, anti-trust questions?
20 As I view it now as a practical matter, MR. FRYE:
l
, 21 I don't think it will have an impact but as a purely legal l 22 matter ze could, and it has in the past. .
2 It has in the past.
MR. MILHCLLIN:
- 24 MR. FRYE: Yes. ;
_ emi smorms. ine.
25 '
MR. MILHOLLIN: Would new information about anti-trust l
! l t
. 35 gb32 I coming up from a change in ownership tend to have an impact --
3 MR. FRYE: That triggers the procedure that the Staff 3 When there's a change in ownership or a proposed r follows.
4 change in ownership, the Staff publishes a notice, asks for 5 views of the public and then furnishes data on the proposed new owner to the Justice Department for Justice Department's
~
0 7 advice. 'And it's conceivable that that procedure could 1 3856 .
8 lead to an anti-trust proceeding.
9 MR. MILHOLLIN: What effect would that have on the
! 1 10
- license? l
' DR. SPANGLER: It would tend to delay it to some 12 It will be another one of these causes of delay.
extent.
O- I3 MR. MILHOLLIN: Assuming you had a CP, for exampke, Id and.then a change of ownership occurs.
15 I just have to speculate because I don't MR. FRYE: ,
6 16 But I would think that it.'s-questionable whether a change know. '
I7 of ownership -- I think it's a good question whether a change 18 of ownership would affect the CP, I just don't know whether it II would or not. My guess is that once the CP is issued after i
20 anti-trust review, that some subsequent change would not j t
21 necessarily affect its validity but could trigger an anti-trust 22 proceeding which could have some bearing on the CP. They could 23 impose anti-trust conditions on the CP that have not been
.a m n.ooners, .{prpsedbefore. i 3
MR. MILHOLLIN: But legally -- if, for example, you had 1
w v
~ s+. . c n a . - . > -
, j 36 l
i I
h cgb33 a rase which went through the CP process with no anti-trust 2
review- and then the utility transferred ownership such as to l r create an anti-trust problem --
I MR. FRYE: They all have an anti.-trust review, but a I
\
5 hearing isn't mandatory. !
1 0 I
. MR. MILHOLLIN: What I meant to say was a hearing.
I If there's no hearing, I guess that means whoever is in charge ;
8 of making th'e decisions decides there is no anti- trust, or there
' i is not an anti-trust problem in the case. So you go through 10 and get the CP and then during construction, the licensee trans-I 11 1 fers ownership -- I'm just thinking out loud now -- in such a 12 way that would raise anti-trust problems. Is it legally
' I3 necessary for'the permit to be suspended in that case?
14 MR. FRYE: I would have to really research it to be
" certhin, but my suspicion is no, that the permit would not be 16 lifted in that case, that this would come under the Commission's continuing jurisdiction over anti-trust matters which is spelled
, out in Section 105 of the Act. '
i 19 MR. MILHOLLIN: So the original decision on anti-trust 20 would continue to be in place.
MR. FRYE: Until changcd in some way.
22 MR. MILHOLLIN: -- until changed.
l i
23 i
Okay.
O 24 One final -- I will skip anti-trust
}) % ,,, g, MR. IRELAND:
F 23
- j considerations.
i
l - .
37 l /~T( ,rb34 1 One other small item, which I would like a little bit 1
2 of guidance on. I am looking for matters, for new information f
- e 3
that has cropped up which we might regard as significant, having l /
d 1A.040 a potential for perturbing the adjudicatory process and so 5
forth.
6 There are quite a number of cases where there have 1
7 been pro'blems crop up during construction, with or without I i
I I
l 8 adjudication still going oh, many of which have been quite l handily resolved during the routine technical review proce s to and have never surfaced as issues in proceedings like where l
11 we are interested in. I would assume that I would let those l
12 l
- cases lie.
13 Do all agree?
MR. MILHOLLIN:
l 14 MR. SEGE: Yes. The criteria could be where a Board 15 If a Board isn't involved, then it is not within l
is involved.
l 16 our scope. .
I MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
That's it?
19 MR. IRELAND: That's it.
l 20 MR. MILHOLLIN: Thank you.
21 Bill, do you have anything you would like to --
DR. SPANGLER: Before we get off this scope question, I'm sorry I didn't respond promptly enough to your question.
m %,,, ,,I It seemed to me that it is relevant to our case studies, because; l
a -
25 I new information may arise -- that would be one of the reasons i
[ !
f l
! i
- l. _ _
. . . . . . . -. . . _ . - . = - ..
38 l 1
' s_jsgb35
- ('T ~
for denying' the construction, in ef fect, the cost estimate.
2 So as long as we have an understanding that in our case 3
r studies if the utilities find this has been a source of uncer-4 .
tainty or of perturbation in normal expectations of scheduled 5
cost expenditures, I have no problem with your solution, as long
. as we leave it within the scope of the case study, at any rate.
7 MR. IRELAND: Yes.
l MR. MILHOLLIN: Bill, do you have a report?
9 .
l MR. LOVELACE: I have nothing going full speed at the j l '10 l moment. I guess one thing I'm waiting for is the list that i
! 11 ,
l ,ill Parler was going to generate.
li '
- MR. MILHOLLIN:
I meant to ask you, have you received
! (^T s_/ 13 ,
~
the list of dates, which you don't have, which refer to time 14 for -- the time of docketing the appeal and time for requesting i 15 l stay? ,
16 MR. LOVELACE: No, I don't.
17 MR. MILHOLLIN . Bill, your name has been mentioned 16
. already. ,
19 MR. PARLER: In what context?
i 20 l MR. MILHOLLIN: We were last time talking about the i
21 fact that the rainbow books don't contain any dates beyond the
23 MR. LOVELACE: That's correct.
24 f~}
ur.dwei Memme, ine. MR. MILHOLLIN: And there was a suggestion that it would 4
25
, be a good thing if at least on the six cases -- is that right --
4 1,
. -. _ .- -- . = . - - . - - . - . .. - .. - . . - - . .
i #
39 I that we could have the dates, that you all could have the dates 36 2
which would, for those cases, indicate when appeals were filed, 3
' when actions on appeal were taken, when stays were requested '
and so forth.
MR. PARLER: I thought the way that we left that at 0 the last meeting, they would tell me what cases they wanted I what dat'es'on, I have heard nothing from anybody since.
However, whatever dates they want that are related to l
the progress of the proceeding through the adjudu wtory process, 10 I could provi'de and promptly.
11 But I must state that on the basis of the meeting 12 last time, it wasn't entirely clear to me what dates they 13 l wanted, point number two, l
'14 Point number two, I thotght that someone would come i
15 back to.me with what precise information they wanted, whatever i 16 they need I can produce.
I MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
Well can we assume, then, that you want the dates II
- I 19 for the six cases, at least -- you need the dates, at least, 20 for the cases we've identified?
I MR. LOVELACE: Yes.
It was my impression that Paul was going to get with ,
i
' 23 Bill with the list.
gg MR. PARLER: He's absent. I didn't take his name in l ,
A personal privilege which apparently was not afforded vain.
f i
t L
40 i 37
' to me. * .
2 'It just.came up after you walked in MR. MILHOLLIN: .
. i
/~ the door, Bill. !
4 MR. PARLER: I say that with a smile on my face. But o
5 Bill Lovelace's understanding in that regard was the same as j 1
0 -
- mine.
7 MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
~
8 But in any event, it's no big problem MR. PARLER:
i
' for the simple reason that I have had this kind of information 10 collected on all the cases that we have had since the beginning.
' MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
cridlC 1D I How are you doing outside the dates -- other than with O 13 respect to th'e dates, are you moving forward on the six cases 34 at all?
J 15 MR. LOVELACE: Yes, I've been looking at the six 16 cases.
II MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
18 Should I just go around the table?
U John?
20 MR. CHO: I was about ready to report for Bill Parler, Il but since he's here in person, I.think I'll just deler to Bill. l 22 He has done a substantial amount of work -- in fact, I think I
23 he has almost completed all of the tasks that he undertook to 24 do.
A, mesi menerwen, inn .
l 25 MR. MILHOLLINs Bill, did someone explain to you what 1
I l
k- - , , . . . _ , . ,
l 41 1
llhib38 we have done so far at the meeting today?
l 2
l MR. PARLER: Generally yes, Mr. Chairman. In that l l 3
< regard, I must apologize for being late. I was detained on 4
other Commission business which could not be postponed, that's 5
why I came in late.
4 4
It's my understanding that the group has, just before !
I walked'in, completed its consideration of the interim ]
8 report and that,with some minor changes, the report has been
'9 approved.
C5 MR. PELHOLLIN: Yes. The changes that I think we 11 made were fairly minor. You should have a copy of it back 12 there, I think.
13 MR. PARLER: I also understand there was some dis-14 .
cussion about whether whatever we are doing should concern 15 itself with the anti-trust cases, .a question which was raised 16 some several weeks ago.
17 MR. MILHOLLIN: Which you raised. I think we tenta-tively, at least, decided not to go into that.
19 MR. PARLER: I guess at this point in the deliberations-20 If, indeed, this Committee recommends that would seem fine.
21 that the immediate effectiveness rule be changed, someone 22 at some time will have to face the issue of how such a change applies to initial decisions which are concerned with our pre-('h A.& non.n, m.
24 licensing anti-trust review, that will be an issue that cannot L - 25 be escaped if the immediate effectiveness rule is changed.
~~ ~
42
-'^5 1 s
v
'gb39 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes.
2 MR. PARLER: I suppose at this poin': I'm supposed to l make a progress report, Mr. Chairman.
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, we were going around the table a
5 and I guess it's your turn now.
6 MR. PARLER: I'm prepared to make a progress report.
7 Substantial progress has been made in carrying out 8
the work plan which John Cho, John.Frye and I : tbmitted. With 9
considerable Staff effort, I have research completed on cases ,
1 10 1 involving stay requests, including cases in which the Board f or a Board on its own motion considered a stay. Cases in 12 I which a carty requested a stay of construction, halt both in l
/
()' 13 i construction permit and limited work authorization proceedings. j l 14 l l I have the results of that research in my hand. I'm j l 15 not going to pass it out now because I want to complete my !
I 16 I personal review of it. to make certain that the information is ;
I 17 accurate and complete.
i 18 However, I do expect,if there are no intervening i i
circumstances which take priority, to have my review completed O
i and to have this document, the results of this research cir-culated to the Chairman and the other members of the committee 22 lsome time next week.
23 Now, I also have identified the cases at the operating
('~h 24 It's my understanding 2.d.c s.oonm. nie. license stage which involve stay requests.
1 2S i of the scope of our efforts at this time -- do not involve ,
i
y f .
43
/~% 1 Therefore, I have not. included that data,
,4b40- operating licenses.
2 the data on operating licenses, in the list of -- the research r i effort that I'm going to circulate to the Committee.
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: Excuse me, Bill, could you state that 5 You say you've done again? I'm not sure I fcllowed you.
operating licenses but you've not included it in the table?
7 I have the raw data MR. PARLER: That's correct.
8 cn operating' licenses, but*it's not included in the table.
MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
10 l It's my understanding -- and correct me MR. PARLER:
11 if I'm wro6g -- that the operating license stage we keep out 1 12 of what we're doing at the present time. 'Is my understanding 13 correct?
14 MR. MILHOLLIN: I guess that's pretty much correct. -
l 15 If the Chairman or the Committee has a, MR. PARLER:
. change of mind in tha.t regard, the raw research data that I have 17 I on operating licenses could be put in the same tabular form l
18 !
. when needed. .
1 s'
19 MR. CHO: Mr. Chairman, I think our report indicates
~
20 that we will defer until later the possible impact on the i'
21 operating license stage -- on the immediate effectiveness rule.
MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, I agreed we would have to confront the question at some point, to what extent any changes
, i
~\ 24 we recommend would apply to operating licenses. So I suspect lIi (d.e.re n.coners 25 inc l I I eventually we will need to have that data in a table, wouldn't i
t :
1
.j
44 I
hgb41 you suppose?
I MR. CHO: Right.
3
- 7- i MR. MILHOLLIN: So it might be well to go ahead and put it ins - But that, I suppose, is up to you since you know what'the Staff requirements are and.so forth.
0 MR. PARLER: Well, if it is up to me, I would just as I soongoaheadwitht51etableintheformthatithasbeen 8
produced, consistent with iny prior understanding that we would put aside the later considerations of the operating license
- - -jo i stage of these proceedings.'
11 If the Chairman and the. Committee would like to have
- 12 this table next week or shortly thereafter, I suggest that it i r 1 13 go in the form that I now have it.
. MR. MILHOLLIN: Why don't you give it to us in 15 installments then, if that's convenient?
i 16 '
MR. PARLER: So it's my understanding that you do want 17 the information on operating licenses, is that correct?
18 MR. MILHOLLIN: If it is best, , you can give us what you i
have now next week and, at your conveni nee, put the remaining 20 I data in a table.
MR. PARLER: But we do need it? I don't want to just go through the axercise of producing the table. .
23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well, why don't we hold off on it ;
4 A e.,.i n.oo,im. .
then? It's up to you, really, I don't know how much more work 25 :
it would be to put what you have in a table, I guess that's my I
l l
-l
- - - -- ~
45 h42 I point.
- 2 But the implications '
MR. PARLER: It's no b'ig question.
.e '
l of going into that area are really what does concern me. If we 4
are going'to do that-in this limited area, what does that maan 5 Either we're going to be con- 1 in regard to our total effort?
6
. carned with the operating license stage or we are not.
- I 7
MR. MILHOLLIN: Well then why don't we agree to wait
. \
8 until we have a meeting with the Commissioners and see how they I
react be' fore you go ahead and d'o any further work on it? ,
I MR. PARLER: That'll be fine. All you have to do is 11 tell me what you want.
I MR. MILHOLLIN: So we agree to do.that?
O. 13 MR. CHO: Yes. I thought our report said we would 14 defer any consideration of the operating license stage until 15 I later.
16 MR. MILHOLLIN: All right. I i ;
MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman, what I've been talking about,' ->
I8 the table that I've been talking about covers a large part of 19 our work plan.
a ,
20 Another part of our work plan has to do with research I
I on federal court decisions which apply criteria which differ 22 to some extent from'the Virginia Petroleum Jobbers criteria.
23 I have had that research done, I'm still in the process of
-f 'gs reviewing it and at some point I will probably, wi. __a the next 1 . .s.r.: n.oorwri. ine. t 25 i
y couple of weeks, circulate that to the Chairman and to the other I
i
_ = - - . - - - . - - -
l .
46 I
b43 members of the Committee.
2 Finally, I have had another table prepared which tries .
3l to give the substance of various decision points, primarily l
i 4
relating to stay requests in the Seabrook proceeding. That is b
5 not necessarily an item that was within the work plan that the !
6
- three'of us are responsible for.
I I' told the group earlier that this was a task that I ,
. t l
8 had to have done to enlighten me. I have that project completed; J
9 I'm reviewing it and if the Chairman and the other members are 10 ;.
interested in'the results of that effort, I will be glad to .
I 11 .
I circulate the document. l 1
12 MR. MILHOLLIN: Fine. Yet another Seabrook table will t 13 be welcomed by everyone, I suppose.
MR. PARLER: Well, it's a table that summarizes the 15 stay motions, at what point in the process,. the major grounds 16 argued in support of the stay motion, the Staff position, how 17 the thing was resolved and the final administrative action that
. was taken on the merits of the grounds relied on in the stay 19 motion. f
^
20 MR. MILHOLLIN: That would appear to be very useful.
l .
21 .
Very useful, indeed.
i 22 I think we Well that's a very encouraging report. -
i
! i 23 should all commend you on your industry and perserverance in A .mers nemrms, in . i putting this together.
I know everybody is looking forward to i 25 '
getting the materials that will be coming out.
=.. - --
i ,
l 47 T 1
(_j3gb44 I think that will give us something rather concrete to l 2 l base our further action on.
- John, would you like to add anything to what Bill has said? .
5 MR. CHO: I would just like to endorse doubly what you 6
. said.-
MR. MILHOLLIN: John Frye?
MR. FRYE: Well after the last meeting, I indicated 9
that I was compiling a list of decisions in which the Appeal ,
Board had modified in some way a conclusion or a finding of a 11 Licensing Board. And I have completed that. It has turned
'12 out to include a few more car.os than I had originally anticipated.
13 And interestingly enough,.a great many of these cases are 14 operating license cases.
15 I'll pass this out to the members of the group now. l
. i 16 (Documents distributed.) '
17 l I This tabulation is very similar to the tabulation I l
18
. did of Appeal Board decisions that determinel, because of some 19 I action or inaction of a Licensing Board, further action was ;
20 1 I i necessary. ;
I 21 Basically, in making this survey, what I did was to !
I 22 l look for the magic word " modify." And if I found it, I included'
! l 23 l the decision. l
! /~N 24 ,
I did not include certif2.ed questions, referred rulings l1 .oers newners,ine.1 25 lor intervention rulings. And I did not include Seabrook and t 0 l
~
48-
- c. 5 I St. Lucie, hithough I don't think St. Lucie wodld have popped 2
up on this list.
/
3l MR. PARLER: A large number of these appear to involve :
- 4 operating' licenses. ,
MR. FRYE: That's correct. A good number of them do.
0 John, this is an admirable job. I'm
- MR. MILHOLLIN:
I hopeful that in the next few weeks we can put these lists 8 together and' coma up with some kind'of a plan for our next phase of' investigation.
10 1 list and the MR. FRYE: I still have to add to thi 11 previous list the Commission decisions, which I will start on 12 next week.
O. 13 MR'. MILHOLLIN : That will be excellent.
14 MR. PARLER: You have to add what -- I didn't get that..j 15 I MR. FRYE: The Commission decisions. ,
MR. MILHOLLIN: John, do you have any plans for this I
citegory which we identified as cases in which the issues which ;
18 are consiiered on appeal might be prejudiced by -- the decision i i i i 19 on the issues might be prejudiced by on-going const'ruction? ; l i MR. FRYE: Do I have any plans for that, is that your question?
j MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes. ,
3' l There was this rather -- well, I guess we can say, 23 [
()
i 24 i
! - Ac. . .cag m.oonm. inc.
put .in quotes the word " subjective" -- category cases 'n which 1
25 '
it might have been possible that the character of the review l i !
r-- --
49
' wou1d have been affaceed by the presence of construceien.
04a 2
MR. FRYE: Well I can certainly review these. I think
<~ some of them can be eliminated. Certainly, I think for the moment, we can eliminate all the OLs and some of them, just from 5 this list and from the other list as well, might be eliminated 6
, such as Sequoyah, on the second page of the compilation in which i I
the Appeal Board incorporated certain conditions which had been l I
agreed to_by'the Applicant'and the Staff. There was no objection
' to that and I don't see'how that would have prejudiced any l 10 further review.
11 MR. MILHOLLIN: I guess.what I'm getting at is, we )
J2 can probably figure out the answer to that question more or less O i, from the matters you already have lit ted.
1
" MR. FRYE: Right. This gives you sort of basic ,
l 15 '
information. It identifies those cases on which you need to l, i 4 16 i inquire further. There are others which obviously should be !
I7 candidate for further inquiry, I think.
18
, MR. PARLER: The question you're talking about, Mr Chairman, is very hard to answer. In most cases, just from 0
reading the decision, my research people tried to deal with 21 that issue and they have, but there's a lot of room for judgment to be applied. ,
MR. MILHOLLIN: I realize it a totigh issue.
MR. PARLER: There are a lot of instances where they A ase,:s n.nonen, ,, '
25 $
said yes, on-going construction could affect the issue that was ; ;
i A-m_____ -
50
' involved,'the adjudication of the issue that was involved.
llhgb47 2
I thought a part of this problem would be solved by 1 e interviewing the Board members that were involved. Is my 4
recollection correct in that regard?
5 Yes, I think your recollection is MR. MILHOLLIN:
. correct. My question .was directed to the possibility of identifying cases which we could then pursue. l l
8' MR. FRYE:
~
I fully concur with what Bill has said. I 9
think it is a very subjective job,.and it is a very difficult to job to identify those cases where on-going construction night '
11 have prejudiced review. And that's why I chose what I thought 12 were very objective standards for the first review of the
( 13 material.
l 14 I think at this point, based on this infcrmation, .' i,
- certain cases will pop out which require further study, and to ,
t I
16 the degree that inter. viewing the Board members involved might ,
I
, 17 i be appropriate.
i 18 MR. PARLER: Well the purpose of the question was to
'a ,
5.220 help identify such cases .--- '
i 20 i MR. MILHOLLIN: It was just a question asking for l
21 information, whether the cases we have woald yield itself to 22 that kind of an inquiry.
! 23 MR. PARLER: The point I was trying to make is that i
I nei n.oorem, .
the people who did this work, the list of cases that I'm going '
i 25 i
to distribute to the Committee, did address the issue that
. ._ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ ~ ___ _ .. . ._ __ _.
,. . _ . _ . _ . _ = .
51 l
(~)/
'- gb48 3 talking abobt: could appellate review be prejudiced by on-going 2 -
construction.
l MR. MILHOLLIN: That's good.
.MR. PARLER: And they have expressed their judgment on 1
5 that question. Maybe in the important cases where such a 6
judgment has been expressed in the affirmative, that might be 7
the lead th'at you're talking about that you want.
1 B
Am I understanding you correctly?
MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes. ,
i 10 ' Well then that has been already done in MR.'PARLER:
i l 11 i the list that I'm going to pass out to you, 12 l MR. MILHOLLIN: Good, that's very encouraging.
! I realize it's r difficult thing to make that kind of 14 a judgment. Perhaps it's practically impossible, just from ;
15 i
! looking'at the decision itself. -
, . i i 16
! MR. CHO: It seems to me we ought to have a better feel 17 on that point once we could obtain some of the other information ,
i
- . 18 that our technical people are going to get for us, things like i
19 i
financial information, work being done and so forth, and then l
20 I try and correlate all of that information.
( 21 '
MR. hILHOLLIN: Miller, you're next on the list.
22 Well, I do have some progress to report.
DR. SPANGLER: i i
23 But let me say as a preface that several of us, following our ,
rT 24 i
Q_)
Am-rWws4 Rmorms, lx.
last meeting, had different interpretations about what you ,
2S.
wished us to do with regard to progress and work. plans and I took i
?
t
l
- - . 52 we
,'O~gb49 I the view that -- particularly with regards to my own, or to my
\
i 2
own work plan, that you wanted me to play it in low key and holdi i
! 3l off until the Commission had a chance to review. it. Now ~4ybe that was the wrong assumption, I don't know.
MR. MILHOLLIN: Well it's too bad Paul isn't here, i*
0 I thought that Paul Had agreed to try to work up a series of
~
i
( .
I questions which might be posed to the Applicants concerning at a .
[ .
8 least the six cases that we had identified,which sould produce '
material which we might not have in-house.
4 DR. 'SPANGLER: Yes, there's a need for that certainly.
f i l
11 MR. MILHOLLIN: The questions we could then -- we could~
I 12
- f then go over the questions and we could see whether they would yield the kind of information that would fit in with the other i l
I 14 s ' itdies that we're doing.
t 15 DR. SPANGLER: Basically, insofar as the deliberations l1 ,
j 16
-- I mean, Paul Collins and Bill Lovelace and Dick Ireland and j i
17 myself met to talk about the case studies and, as a result of
'* 18 that meet'ing, our thinking -- if I am reporting it correctly --
t -
4 19 i had gone beyond the consideration of a combination of Paul's 20 k 5.270 i exercise and the 1G exercise that I have spearheaded. Now !
l
'l there may be others things that ought to be put into the question, 22 perhaps of a legal nature, I don't know.
23 But I am concerned about getting a reasonably early l f% 24 :
Q_)
Ac. . mn.i n.oonen, ine. l start on this,~because the utilities who have so far responded 25 positively toward our explorations, several of them have expressed
53 hgh50 I concern about the time involved. And I have told them not to 2
- begin anything until we did 'have a coordinated picture in front 3
! of them of our integrated information regbirements.
- .So I think there is an urgency about, perhaps, having a' l-Subcommittee meeting or sot.nething like that, to finalize what !
,. we wa'nt to put in'such a letter to the utilities.
As' for other items of progress, although I did play it f
O in low key, I have as a result of my earlier explorations, I have ,
heard from several members of the utilities that I had contacted.
10 I go't a letter from Don Blackmon of Duke, expressing l-
' that he had consulted his management and they were positively l
12 I
disposed not only to doing Catawba 1 and 2 but perhaps providing I
13 l some additional information from several of the other cases to i 14 l give contrasting historical experience. -
15 This was I also got a call from Ralph Green of Midland.
l very recent, just in the past week. And he indicated that his 17 management was willingly disposed toward cooperation.
. .And I talked to Mr. Rehnberger of WPPSS and he, too, had consulted higher management, and they are inclined to
~
20 cooperate.
! So far the indications are that all of the six would be 22 l
willing to cooperate, but I have not checked back ,with St. Lucie 2 a.4 yet to see what the project manager there had learned in 1 discussions with management. But the other five seemed to be 25 l favorably disposed toward cooperation.
i l
L
i- . . . _ , , . .
(
- i. 54 I Good.
51 MR' MILHOLLIN:
DR. SPANGLER: I've started gathering personal file materials in-house with regard to a number of the six cases
- I talked to~several project, environmental emphasizing Seabrook.
5 project managers and have tapped their sources of file 0 But that is only a rather information on several of the cases.
I
. modest beginning.
l 0
I mentioned earlier that I'had received thic letter 9
from Mark Messing. And one of the concerns that he expressed - ;
~
i 10 he was not-aware of our work plan, which did indicate that we f I
11 i were thinking of having supplemential in-house information, that
'12 we weren't going to get all our iriformation from utilities for I3 the case studies -- and in his letter he said that he was l
I 14 afraid that we were giving the public short-shrift in the 15 study becausa of the focus of my earlier memo on utility- l i
16 I supplied information..
I !
17 And I have since assured him that that was not the case, i
18
- that we did plan to have some independent studies to help us ;
I 19 to validate the reasonableness of utility-supplied information j
0 and to further explore community-relat2d impacts,which I think ,
21 it inappropriate to go to utilities in the first place for thisl
.320 basic information for these case studies. ,
23 At our previous in-house meeting that I alluded to, the O
l Aa. r.e.r.: n.oonen, inc.
24 four of us did discuss briefly some of the ideas for additional .
25 i l
or supplemental sources of information. And,there's a great l .
I,
55 I
dhb mass of this and the problem is getting, you know, resources to 2 '
work on this.
3 f
A number of us feel, with regard to the af termath of -
the Three ' Mile Island episode, that our time commitments will
.5 not be the same as before, that we can envision additional 6
. burdens.
7 And I think if I want any assistance from our shop, for example, I will need some strong expression of priority 9
from the' Chairman to make that case for diverting those energies.
I don't know how the other three gentlemen are situated I
11 with regard to getting supporting help from their staffs, or l 12 I whether the burden is entirely with them or what their situation:
() 13 might be, but'I could only say in terms of the environmental
-l '
14 technology shop -- ,[
t MR.. IRELAND: I anticipate a large number of people I
will be diverted for some length of time, but that there are to be -- but to the extent that people ara available to help ,
. out in our job, that management will be willing to lend that i 19 i support. It's just a question of who will be available. i 20 MR. MILHOLLIN: I see. ,
P MR. IRELAND: And also not upsetting other priorities 22 on reviews that are taking place too.much. ,
( 23 MR. MILHOLLIN: It may be that we won' t get down to the ,
l coral Reporters, nc. , po M of asd ng M spec M c people for ano der M weeks at
,A, ,
25 ,
l I least, and by that time maybe things will have calmed down l
j
- 56 1 I
(./ 5 3' 3
somewhat or* at least it will be easier to predict personnel time 2
by then than it may be now. l 4 I
(
3l DR. SPANGLER: I would suggest with the number of l 4
Congressmen and Senators and Committees that are interested in 5
this whole area, that they are not bashful at any time of i 1
- submi'tting questions involving rather vigorous information )
i 7
searching efforts, like we've had a number'.of those in the past ,
8 l and I would expect more in. the future. i 9
MR. MILHOLLIN: Oh, yes.
10 ! '
DR. 'SPANGLER: And those are rather unpredictable in 1 !
11 '
a way, except that we can predict that some of them are likely l 12 to happen.
g3 MR. MILHOLLIN: I was hoping we could finish here by 14 noon today and no.t have to go off into the afternoon. I take ,
l it that that would be favorably received by. everyone as an 16 objective. .
17 So could I ask George and Steve to go ahead and make ,
- their reports? :
MR. SEGE: I have nothing to report at this time , l
. l 20 i Mr. Chairman. ,
1 21 MR. OSTRACH: Mr. Chairman, I also have nothing useful l 22 '
to report at this time. ,
j 23 h; DR. SPANGLER: Could we get back to the subject I ,had 24 Is it my
> ( e w p onm.w.} asked you to take up earlier about work scheduling?
4.
1 25:; lunderstanding now that you wish us to hold of f on these case
- i
.=.;..--.-- :7 .. - . . - . --
57 l
gb54 studie's until the Commission meets with us?
l 2
MR. MILHOLLIN:
My feeling would be that, I guess our I meeting with the Commission doesn't necessarily -- well, may have more or less effect on our wo'rk schedules, depending on 5
what the content of the meeting is.
0
< I suppose my assumption'is that once we have Bill
- Parler's results, and we can put those together with John Frye's 8
results and t' hen try to integrate that with the case studies 9
that the rest of you are doing and develop our strategy for I ,
10 I l going outside the Commission for information. That would be my 11 general feeling of the work schedule.
's MR. FRYE And at that point, too, Mr. Chairman, I 13 think we would need as a grouo to sit down and decide on which cases we really need to take a hard look at.
15 MR MILHOLLIN: Yes, because we've had questions which l
16 I have sort of remained up in the air about how many cases we I i
1 17 should look at and whic.h ones. And once we go through what i
18 a we've learned so far, we can make some judgments on that. j'.
19 i MR. PARLER: In that regard, even the six cases are ;
. l
+
20 l still up in the air? 1 I '
21 I ask that question because if someone wants specific ,
22 decision dates from me, I would like very much to .know what L
L 23
. specific dates they want and for what cases. Because, in some ,
l r- '
24 i lu Q . e s n .... w. , of these cases, there are dozens of decision dates, j l
25 i MR. MILHOLLIN: Well why don't we just assume for the ',
l
I. 58 L .
l' .
I gb55 time being'that the six cases are still active.
MR. PARLER: Shall I further assume that Paul Collins l
3 r or someone'will tell me precisely what they want? ;
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: Oh, yes, you can assume that.
^
DR. SP' ANGLER: I'm concerned, if the number of cases i
l 6 go beyond six, from the standpoint of workload, unless going 7
beyond six means a more Jimited scope of inquiry that.doesn't 8
l involve --
l MR. MILHOLLIN: You co'uld assume that if we take up ,
10 !
an_ additional category, it would only be for limited -- for l 11 I the purpose of gathering limited.informtion. And of course, '
i 12 the decision to take th'em up probably will be dependent on 13
.,.410 how much info'rmation there is on a broad category of cases.
- . l l
l 14 i So that would be my -- to respond to your question, .;
l 15 $
l' '
that's my assumption about what we're going to do next.
So far as another meeting is concerned, I would hope I
17 that we could dispense with any more meetings until our next
. monthly meeting, with the understanding that I will try to i 1 19 coordinate the work by telephone or by coming into ' town during l
l -* 20 l i the month of April, so that our next meeting will be with the Commission'and no further meetings until our next monthly 22 meeting l unless someone objects to that.
23 I. just received a note from George that says if we x:,.i namnm.ine. : recess for five minutes, he can determine a time on 4/18 for 25 l I j our Commission meeting.
'! l I
1 :
. t.
. . _ _ __7. _ . _ . _ i
, l 59
' '. l
^
l ps
%d h Is 'that. agreeable, to give George five minutes to do l as 36 !
~ '
, that now?
) (Indications of assent.)
4
-(Recess.) ,
! MR. MILHOLLIN: Back on the record.
i
- i 6 What remains to be done at this meeting? We were going to perhaps' discuss the question of Three Mile Island --
8 oh, excuse me, George, yes, do you have your announcement for I
9 us?
l 10 1 MR. SEGE: Yes. We're on the agenda for April 18 i t
i 11 at 1:30, subject to the normal uncertainties, f And this will be in the Commission ;
(f. 13 MR. MILHOLLIN: i meeting room.
l 14 Yes. That is correct.
MR. SEGE: )'
15 The agenda ordinarily doesn't get firm until close i 16 to the actual time, b'ut I was assured by the Assistant Secretary 17 that the size of the room and the fact that out of town travel
- i8 is involved will be taken into account in trying to hold the .
-- time.
20 1 MR. MILHOLLIN: The notice for the meeting will be l
21 taken care of by the Commission?
MR. SEGE: Oh, yes. ,
22 l i' 23 MR. MILHOLLIN: Are there further matters to be ;
=
24 :,
! Ace Foceral Meoorters. foe. j discussed?
8 l-25 ' (No response. ) .
a
(0 c
( )1b57 MR*. MILHOLLIN: I take 'it by now the question of the 2
iapact of Three Mile Island has receded 'from immediate concern.
I l MR. CHO: I thought we had discussed it, at least i briefly,-just a few minutes ago. ;
4 MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, okay.
, Well, I'll see you a month from now at the meeting, 7
and I hope 'to be coming into town between now and then to meet 8
with you individually. Stkve and I will work on the supplement ,
l
- l i
9 this afternoon and let you knou about the documents we plan to ,
i 10 1 include.
l
- 1 jj .
MR. PARLER: You said you'd see us a month from now, 12 at the Commission briefing, are all of us going to be there or 13 -
what?
14 MR. MILHOLLIN: Strike that, will you? I'm sorry, j 15 '
Our next meeting will be a month from -- our next meeting will ;
be our ordinary monthly meeting, and we will all be present at I
17 the Commission briefing on April 18. .
j
. MR. PARLER: That's why I asked the question whether 19 i you wanted us, Mr. Chairman, all to be present or not. I 20 MR. MILHOLLIN: It was simply a slip on my part.
21 MR. SEGE: Mr. Chairman, do you wish us to get together 4 22 somewhat before the meeting with the Commission, like say, 11:00, i
in the morning and/or immediately af ter the Commission meeting?
24 ,
fA ["h sjeral Reoorters, Inc.
l MR. MILHOLLIN: If we get together, it seems to me it l 25 '
i might be better to do it afterward.
I !
i
.- _r - . , . . . . - _ - _ _ _ -
. _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . - . . _ . _ . - . . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ = _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . - - . _ - . . _ . _ . .
- ~'
l .
61 llh558 MR'. SEGE: Certainly. ,
2 MR. MILHOLLIN: The only problem with doing that is
' the notice for the meeting would not be probably given in time.
.)Gt. SEGE: So we have to know definitely whether we're going to need a meeting or not.
- MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes, we could meet informally in subgroups,'I assume -- we can't do that, Steve? !
- i 8 <
MR. OSTRACH: The Federal Advisory Committee Act J 1
9 provides that any Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee is ,
10 1 bound by the 'same requirements as the Full Committee. l 11 l MR. MILHOLLIN: Well it's a good thing we don't have -
12 any Subcommittees, isn't it?
13 (Laughter.)
14 Well I guess I shouldn't say it's a good thing, I guess 15 I shouldn't say that because I don't really believe that that's 16 !
true. But it's interesting to know that fact. I 17 MR. SEGE: Is there no legal way for us to be prepared
- to caucus as a Committee af ter we have had the briefing of the 19 Commission and we have received some feedback, is there no legal 20 i way for us to be able to decide on the spot that we have heard I
cnough from the Commission that perhaps we should put our heads i
22 '
i
[ together right then? lu MR. OSTRACH: Sure.
~
. 24 i I think there would be, if we put in the
! A('.cerei m. corms. Inc. DR. SPA'IGLER:
35
,j FR a notice right now indicating that we would convene foll.owing di el
_ a. . ..
-. ,/
62 1
gb59 1 the Commission meeting and leave the exact timing ort because 2 I imagine if people wanted tb come to hear our meeting they I
l r 3 certainly would want to come in time to hear the Commission 4 meeting.- ;
l l 5 MR. OSTRACH: There's no question if we fully intend l
' 1
- - 6 to have a meeting after the Commission meeting, we should 7 publish a Federal Register Notice to that effect, and if we givej 8 less than 15 ' days' notice tihat the Regulations require, the.t 9 would be unfortunate but we certainly should do the best we i
10 I can. I think'that under the circumstances, we would not be
{
Il subject to any effective legal sanctions. And I think certainly ,
12 the principles of the Advisory Committee Act indicate that we
,O i
13 should give as much notice as we can.
14 If the group is agreed that we will plan on having a .
I 15 public session after the commission meeting, I will go ahead
' ,\
16 and prepare -- include that in the-Federal Register Notice I i
17 was going to include for our May meeting in any event.
I
' i
. 18 I'll do that, then. , j 19 MR. MILHOLLIN: Your pleasure is that it wou.*d be 20 worthwhile to have a meeting after the Commission meeting?
l 21 (Indications of assent. ) l l 22 Is there an expression of views on the subject?
23 How do you feel about it, Johr.? .
i
.V 24 MR. FRYE: I have no objection to it. We'll all be Aae rxer i neconm. inc. , .
l 25 ;together, and we may have business that will result from the
63 gb60 Commiscion. ineating and it will be an opportunity to discuss it.
2 On.the'other hand, if it should turn out we don't need a l meeting, well then we can convene, decide that and adjourn.
.MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman --
5 l
MR. OSTRACH: There might be difficulties in arran< jing 1
0 for a' reporter. We will have to have a regular reporter arrangeck 7 '
for.
8 MR. FRYE: That's true.
MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairms.n, I would hope that if there are any large' questions, ambiguities, uncertainties that exist in any of our minds, that those sort of things be explored and
\
l' 12 dealt ~with with the commission, rather than waiting until l
I 13 af terwards. At least that sort of thing, I think, should be i
dealt with when the opport! unity is available to do so, that is, i
15 in the briefing of the Commission. -
3 I suppose it would be useful if we received clear 17 guidance from the Commission at our briefing to convene as
- promptly as possible to see what impact, if any, such guidance would have on our mission as we have understood it to date 20 and our work plan. ,
~21 MR. CHO: Mr. Chairman, I see it worthwhile, at least 22 for this purpose and cerhaos even more, it would be worthwhile I, 23 I h
I think meeting right after the meeting to at least go over i-(
.N.,s nane, 74 the substance of.the meeting to see whether wo have a common ine. I 25-understanding of what transpired and what guidance we actually L
.- 64 I L ... .
~l
. l 1
lOu b61 received frem the Commission. And then perhaps apply that to 2
our work plan and see how'we might go on with our work.
MR. MILHOLLIN: So I detect a concensus, then, in favor of having a meeting, however short, after the meeting 5
we have with the Commission for purposes of exploring the results
-- of th'e meeting among ourselves and discussing any g6idance I
which may liave been given to us during the meeting with the
. Commission. -
\
9 MR. PARLER: I certainly agree with that. The point to i I was trying 'to make was, af ter the meeting, not to lull Os
?
11 '
into a belief that whatever major problems we might have, we 12 can resolve after the fact, that is, after the Commission's briefing--that if we do that as a group, we are likely to lose ,
14 - l 5.595 a major opportuni.ty to have answers on thi.ugs that we as a j 15 Committee, or as individuals responsible for certain important I
16 parts of the Committee's work, will heed.
17 MR. MILHOLLIN: I think that's a good point.
- MR. FRYE: I concur with that, Mr. Chairman. I think i
19 !
it's a very good point. i 20 .
MR. MILHOLLIN: It's a very good point. l l
Could I say I hope everyone will keep it in mind now i
22 i ;
, I that you've made it, and not be lulled into this p.ossible mistake. j
'O hA 24 ederal Reporters, Inc. DR. SPANGLER: I would like to say, with regard to this
? 25 work. plan to get information from the six utilities plus our i !
n L
i l . .
g5 1.
' supplemental information, that I h,ad target completion dates for
! 62 2
different elements of that work plan that I have submitted.
y
' 3 And the first one was to secure agreement from the selected six , l 1
utilities by April-20.and develop a uniform format by April 27, o ,
5 receipt of the utility-supplied information by June 1, a field trip'to gather supplemental information should also be completed by June 1,'and then gathering in-house and case-related !
8 information 'from EPM, LPM,'et cetera, by July 1st and complete the first draft by Autust J ist.
l 10 Now 'this is a very tight schedule. And I would hope ,
" that. following the Commission meeting, if we are going to hold 12 CJ/ 13 read, we should do that'immediately following that to see if l l 14 we can't keep on this schedule if at all possible.
15 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well why . don' t ve wait for scheduling -
i l I I 16 purposes until we put together the list of cases that we've i .
l 17 generated, and then maybe we can tell a little better how I
= realistic it would be to set certain dates.
l l 19 I neglected to include any dates in the interim report :
)
20 i because I didn't feel that our understanding of data gathering 1
j 1
21 was sufficient at this time to really predict with any confidence i i
l 22.I what dates would be realistic. So that's why ther.e is no listing l
23 lI C4 of dates in the interim report.
lO i
24 '
A. . adwg Reconm. loc.
It Could be that when we put together the various lists l
23 >
of cases we have, it will be possible to arrive at some tentative t
I r
' 66
();b63-
' 1 .
dates, but.I would be reluctant to. discuss that until we have -
2 .
] ,
a chance to look at the results of the work by. Bill Parler and 3
l John Frye and others.
I 4 DR. SPANGLER: WEll I think we're talking about two 5
sets of cases. I had thought the work that Paul Collins and I 6
(. were concerned with, and which Bill Lovelace and Dick Ireland, l 7
- e agreed to cooperate and provide resources, that that at any
!- 8 rate, at least insofar.-- let me just speak for myself and
)
i 9 1
a maybe you all will want to speak on this -- but at least insofar 5
10 .
I as my own commitment of time is concerned, unless I get started
- 11 l 2
on a schedule which is reasonably close to the one I just read
,t i 12 to you, I just really don't see how I can do what might be
} 13 -
f my. contribution to this. . ;
^ l 14 If we make too late a start, I don't have time to dig
- iI
! 15 '
1 in adequately and defend this in a public forum that, you know,
- 16 we made a reasonable supplemental effort. And the utilities are 17 concerned about the time, too, you know.
18 .
So that is my concern, that we now allow enough -- now '
s 19 unless we're going to slip the November schedule with the 20 Commission. Now if we want to slip that, then I don't have any i 21 '
problem.. i 22 MR. MILHOLLIN: WEll why don't we try to get together
,1 23 '
i and firm up those dates sometime during Acril. ~
Is that
(").
s_/ 24 '
AL eMml Mmonm. W. agreeable? ,
25 DR. SPANGLER: Yes. We could either do it before or
67 l
l I
hb64 '
after the Commission meeting. But I thought if the Commission l 1
1 2
-- if we are only really holding off for Commission approval of l l this work plan, and assuming they do approve it, maybe we could ,
A' then have a plan of, action to immediately put, you know, letters \
, \
5 for you under your signature to go outi to the six utilities
, or if there is additional utilities with a lesser level of 1
7 information requested, that could be maybe ready to go 8 -
immediately.
9 MR. MILHOLLIN: Well I don't object if you want to get 10 started drawing up lists of questions and categoriesand informa-11 '
tion requests for utilities, that's fine, why don't you go 12 ahead and do that with Paul now.
O' is DR. SPANGLER: All right, and get that ready. But i
14 l you- don't want to send it out under your signature until the -
15 Commission meets, is that it?
16 I l MR. MILHOLLIN: Yes. And until I have a chance to ;
17 f sit down with the results of these other cases to see how they 18 l come.out, that's right. j 19 i DR. SPANGLER: Okay. 'I thought that needed to be ;
20 discussed. I guess maybe more than anybody else, I've been l i
21 concerned about the personal time effort to do a decent job !
in our end of it. Maybe the legal thing can be handled the 23
' way Bill is doing it on a different time schedule, but I think ;
I Q 24 ,
l%ws n.oormi. inc. '
it terms of these cass studies, they're a different ballgame.
MR. MILHOLLIN: George, you had something you wanted l
L
- l 68 l
i I l
?
i I
( ) 65 to say? .
2 Yes, Mr. Cliairman, in connection with the MR. SEGE: )
' < 3l point that Bill made and that John.Frye commented on, perhaps j
- \
L 4 se could set up that committee meeting after the Commission j 5
meeting with an objective, that is, to discuss plans for follow- I t
up after the guidance and comments received from the Commission. ;
i MR. NELHOLLIN- All right.
l0 8
MR. SEGE: To dis't inguish it from the pitfall that ,
9 Bill and John warned us about.
I 10 i
MR. MILHOLLIN: Okay.
I 11 Steve,do you have anything? !
12 MR. OSTRACH: 'No.
13 Well, we'll adjourn at this time.
MR. MILHOLLIN: )
14
! (Whereupon, at 12 : 05 p.m. , the hearing in the 15 j above-entitled matter was adjourned.)
i 17 1
I l
18
. . I !
19 . ! :
! 1 i
' i 20 h l i 21 l )
22 l
23 I
i 2d
,([)..u n ..... ~. ,
i 25 ' '
l' 9