ML20209E154
| ML20209E154 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1985 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209D524 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-409, TASK-PINV, TASK-SE SECY-85-089, SECY-85-89, NUDOCS 8504050190 | |
| Download: ML20209E154 (48) | |
Text
.
,r"%
h SECY-85-89 March 11,1985 POLICY ISSUE For:
(Notation Vote)
The Commissioners From: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
~
Subject:
GPUHUCLEARCORPORATION'S(GPU)REQUESTFOREXEMPTIONFROM THE FEE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 170 FOR THE THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 (TMI-2)
Purpose:
To request Commission review of E00's proposed e<emption of GPU from payment of licensing and inspection fees for TMI-2.
Discussion: By letter dated July 13, 1984 (Enclosure 1), GPU requested an exemption from fees required under the provisions of 10 CFR 170 for TMI-2. GPU gave the following argument to justify its request:
- 1. Because of the unique circumstances of THI-2, fees would impose an undue financial burden on the licensee I
and divert funds needed for a safe and timely cleanup of TMI-2. (GPU projected fee costs for licensing and inspection activities to be about $1.1 million for CY 1984, and $1.8 million each subsequent year.)
- 2. Fees for inspection and application review activities "do not bear a direct relation to the value of the service to the Licensee."
- 3. Fees prescribed under Part 170 appear to be incon-sistent with recent Commission expressions concerning the adequacy of funding and pace of recovery activ-ities for safe and expedient cleanup of TMI-2.
The record shows that GPU estimates of fee assessments for NRC licensing and inspection services are signif-icantly overstated. Total cost recovery for TMI-2 s licensing and inspection services for the f ve: year
Contact:
W. O. Miller, LFMB h
49-27225 \S M -
mm # .m _ ~ - , m . _.%__ s % ._m, _ .._._. .. u .m _ . . - . . _ . , _ ,
2 n
period of March 28, 1979 to July 31 , 1984 has been approximately $700,000. This collection covers only a small part of NRC costs for efforts associated with TMI-2.
Experience indicates that agency's costs for licensing and. inspection services' subject to recovery under Part 170 should not exceed $200,000 per year.
It is clear that the Commission may recover its full costs for review of. applications filed. by GPU for TMI-2 and for inspection services. This point was explicitly emphasized in the court decision of Mississippi Power and Light v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 601 F. 2d 223 (5th Cir.1979).
Although' there is no legal objection to NRd's recovery of its costs for services rendered to GPU for TMI-2, Section 170.11(b)(1) of the Commission's r.egulation authorizes the waiving of fees on an individual decision basis. I.have concluded that the fees for THI-2 should be waived for the following reasons:
- 1. TMI-2 is a unique situation and poses problems and considerations unlike any other licensee. The agency's first concern is the safe, expedient cleanup of the unit.
- 2. The Commission has pressed GPU to step-up its pace of cleanup operations and encouraged other interested parties to financially support the cleanup effort. It now appears that the recovery' activities are receiving greater attention, and a decision for the NRC to waive. licensing and inspection fees would be consistent with the Commission's expressed interest in this case.
i Although the waiving of fees for TMI-2 would make a modest amount of money available to GPU for cleanup of the site (estimated at $200,000 per year), this-
% - .~ .g.m ,o.+..~~-.m.,...._,.m .. :ss a .mmu , _. x , . . . ~ _ . . . _ _ < ..
. 3 would not appear to be a violation of Section 169N of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or a violation of Section 10(a) of the NRC Authorization Act for Fiscal Years Public Law 97-415 (96 Stat. 2067; Jan. 4, 1983).1982-83, These 2_/statutory restrictions apply only to funds apnropriated to NRC.
Recommendat ;n: That the Commission:
'l . Approve the exemption of CFR Part 170 fee
] requirements for TMI-2 to be effective ~ on the date of my letter to GPU.
- 2. Note that I will inform GPU that its request for an exemption from faes for TMI .2 is approved and a letter will be dispatched to GPU after Commission approval. A draft of the proposed letter is enclosed (Enclosure 2).
. . /
i IV W liiam D. Dircks Executive Director for Operations Enclosures :
t 1. GPU ltr dtd 7/13/84
- 2. Draft 1tr to GPU O ec S 169. No Subsidy. - No funds of the Commission shall be employed in the construction or operation of facilities licensed under section 103 or 104 except under contract or other arrangement entered into pursuant to section 31.
N ec S 10(a). No part of the funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act may be used to provide assistance to the General
'Public Utilities Corporation for purposes of the decontamination, cleanup, repair, or rehabilitation of facilities at Three Mile Island Unit 2.
_ . . . - _ . . , . . . ~ . _ , . , . . , _
4 Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly.
to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Tuesday, March 26, 1985.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT~ Tuesday, March 19, 1985, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. 'If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and' comment, the Commissioners and the
, Secretariat should be apprised.of when comments may-be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OPE ,
REGION I EDO ELD ,
SECY k
a
. . . . ~ .
(
,,.' , 4 . ' .
g GPU Nuclear Corporation y ;_ Qggf Post Office Box 480 Route 441 South Mddletown.Penns%vansa 17057-C'!
717 944 7621 TELEX 84 2386 Writer's Direct Dial Number:
(717) 948-8461 4410-84-L-0111 Document ID 0031A July 13, 1984 Office of the Executive Director for Operations Attn: Mr. W. J. Dircks Executive Director
! US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. DC 20555
Dear Mr. Dircks:
Ihree Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2)
Operating License No. DPR-73 Docket No. 50-320 Licensing Fees In accordance with 10 CFR S 170.11(b)(1), GPU Nuclear Corporation requests an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR Part 170 as they apply to Three Mile Island Unit 2 (IMI-2). Licensee submits that, because of the unique circumstances at TMI-2 leading to increased licensing activity,10 CFR Part 170 imposes an undue burden on Licensee and diverts funds that are sorely needed for a safe and expeditious cleanup of TMI-2. For that reason, it is both fair to Licensee and consistent with the public interest to grant the exemption.
Based on past licensing activity and assuming the NRL staff expends as few as six man-years on activities chargeable to the TMI-2 Recovery Program, the fees for those activities (i.e., based on the average cost per professional staff hour contained in Section 170.20) would approximate S400,000 in CY 1984 and as much as $800,000 per year thereafter. In addition, it is understood that TMI-2 would be liable for a fixed annual fee for routine inspections amounting to $300,000 plus full-cost reimbursement for non-routine inspections. Thereafter, the GPU Nuclear Corporaticn is a subsidiary of the GeneralPublic Utslaties Corporation Ed1 _.
= . - - - :" .---
'~--i
_E:., a p .=
. *1~. y .. .
"t.-
~,. Mr. d. J. Di rcks July 13, 1984 4410-84-L-0111 l
total cost may be*as much "as $700,000 in CY 1984 and extaed $1 million each year thereafter.
Exempting TMI-2 from application of 10 CFR Part 170 is indeed authorized: 10 CFR 170.12 states that "(t)he Commission may, upon application by an interested person... grant such exemptions from the requirements of this part as are authorized by law and are otherwise in the public interest." Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 provides that if an agency chooses to charge fees, they must be fair and based inter alia on the value of the service to the recipient and on the public policy or interest served. The inordinate fees that-would be charged the TMI-2 Recovery Program do not bear a direct relation to the value of the service to Licensee. -
Moreover, in view of recent expressions of concern by the Commission relating to the adequacy of funding and the current pace of TMI-2 I.
recovery activities, imposition of substantially increased administrative fees for the NRC support of the recovery effort appears to be inconsis* ent with attaining the common objectives of a safe and j expeditious cleanup of TMI-2. Exemption trom the provisions of 10 CFR
~
Part 170 would make additional funds, which otherwise would be necessarily. diverted to fees, available for actual cleanup operations and would facilitate more expeditious accomplishment of cleanup, in a manner which best serves the public interest.
t' Your prompt consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated.
?; Sincerely B. K. Kanga Director, TMI-
! BKK/jep cc: Chairman - NRC, Mr. N. J. Palladino Commissioner, Mr. J. ' K. Asselstine Conunissioner, Mr. F. M. Bernthal
- _ Commissioner, Mr. T. M. Roberts
' Commissioner, Mr. L. W. Zech, Jr.
Director - Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mr. H. R. Denton Program Director - TMI Program Office, Dr. B. J. Snyder Acting Deputy Program Director - TMI Program Office, Mr. P. J. Grant .
e i
8 l
i
.' :*? Mr. W. J. Dircks **
July 13, 1984 4410-84-L-0111
-I bec: President - GPU Nuclear Corporation, P. R. Clark Executive Vice President - GPU Nuclear Corporation, E. E. Kintner Deputy Director, TMI-2, J. J. Barton Director, Licensing and Nuclear Safety, R. E. Rogan Manager, TMI-2 Licensing, J. J. Byrne Manager, Program Controls. -L. G. Santee F. Standerfer
. 9 0
J r
4 9
__,_c_.. .,--w--
Ref. E0 cys: Dircks Stello Mur Roe Denton ELD
- p #,' Rehm Taylor
.N l ' GPU Nuclear Corporation G(U Nuclear p' .< ,n. a :=rsmeo a h
,- ()- Middletown. Pennsylvania 17057-0191 717 944-7621 A Qe.
o,, TELEX 84 2386 I
Y - 4* Writer's Direct Dia! Number:
, v,f.?
(717) 948-8461
,. 4410-85-L-0023 Docunent ID 0162A January 18, 1985 Office of the Executive Director
- for Operations Attn: Mr. W. J. Dircks Executive Director
' US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Mr. Dircks:
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2)
Operating License No. OPR-73 Docket No. 50-320 Licensing Fees GPU Nuclear Letter 4410-84-L-Olli dated July 13, 1984, requested an exemption from the provisions of 10 CFR Part 170 as they apply to Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2). Although there have been a number of informal discussions between members of our staffs, no offici/l response to our request has been received.
To ensure adequate funding is available and programmed for TMI-2 recovery activities scheduled for CY 1985, a response to our exemption request is essential. Your expeditious, favorable consideration of our request would be most. helpful.
Sincerely, 4
pO
. R. Standerfer Vice President / Director, THI-2 GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of the General Public Utihties Corporation
-m, . . . . __,
- w .
Mr. W J. Dircks January 18, 1985 4410-85-L-0023 FRS/JE/jep ,
cc:- Chairman - MIC, Mr. N. J. Palladino Commissioner, Mr. J. K. Asselstine Comissioner, Mr. F. M. Bernthal Commissioner, Mr. T. M. Roberts Commissioner, Mr. L. W. Zech, Jr.
Director - Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mr. H. R. Denton
-Program Director - TMI Program Office, Dr. B. J..Snyder Deputy Program Director - TMI Program Office, Dr. W. D. Travers t
a
_. . _ . . _ _ ,_ _ . .._ , . . _ _ s . ,
Docket No. 50-320 GPU Nuclear Corporation- "
ATTN: Mr. F. R. Standerfer Director of TMI-2 -
Post Office Box 480
-Route 441 South Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057-0191 l Gentlemen:
Your letter dated July 13, 1984, requested that the Commission exempt GPU Nuclear Corporation from the fee requirements of 10 CFR 170 for Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2). It is your position that, as a result of the unique circumstances at TMI-2 leading to increased lic'ensing activity, 10 CFR 170 causes an undue -financial burden on GPU and diverts funds that are needed for a safe and. expeditious cleanup of the facility.
Commission records 'show that fees paid for TMI-2 over a five-year period between March 28, 1979 and' July 31,1984, total $677,000 ($202,000 'for r
licensing approvals and $475,000 for routine inspections). Experience does not support GPU's projections for annual fee assessments of ,
approximately $1.8 million for CY 1985 and each year beyond.
It is clear that the Commission may recover its full costs for review of applications filed by GPU for TMI-2 and for inspection of Unit 2. This point was explicitly emphasized by the court in Mississippi Power and Light v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 601 F. 2d 223 (5th Cir.1979).
Enclosure 2
mme_._.~..~.~_-~._,~-~..___~~~.__,__m___..,.. _
- _6', O GPU Nuclear Corporation 2 Although there is no legal objection to NRC's recovery of its costs for services rendered to GPU for TMI-2, the Commission has decided that the unique circumstances at Unit 2 and the Commission's interest in a safe and expeditious cleanup operation warrant. exempting GPU from the fees prescribed by 10 CFR 170.for services rendered by NRC to GPU in con-junction with the decontamination and cleanup of TMI-2. On this basis, we have concluded that pursuant to 10 CFR 170.ll(b)(1) an exemption for TMI-2 from the fee requirements is authorized by law and such exemption is otherwise in the public interest and is hereby granted.
This exemption is effective immediately, but is not retroactive in nature. Consequently, for tho5e applications still pending Commission review, the fees paid to date will be retained.
Sincerely, William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHFFT T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-85 SCOPC OF ACTIVITIES OF TMI-2 ADVISORY PANEL APPROVED DISAPPROVED x ABSTAIN NOTPARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS: .
Although I do not necessarily disagrce with OGC's conclusion regarding the scope of the present charter of the TMI-2 Advisory Panel, I would be prepared to allow the Panel to continue the e general " sounding board" function thai. they have been performing in the area of health effects. If this requires a modification g of the Panel's charter, I would support such a modification.
A- '
. 516NAIURL
/ 3" //dS' DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEc. 80 -
NOTATION VOTE
. RESPONSE SHFET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
sEcY-85 PROPOSED RETRANSFER OF U.S.-ORIGIN HEAVY WATER FROM WEST GERMANY AND SWITZERLAND TO KOREA APPROVED g DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
~7~ MonLD L/Kf A 8/eiffiss- /3y 7 p os rpr p e s ras oi=- inf
<.)b ?$60 hR.D A /3/L /T bF //OV OA7sQ Renc7ans at 7/iis 7,VPE.
-A ' -
<8 4
- SIGNAIUR j #- P3 '
DAl t.
SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
N0TATI0N V0TE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
- SECY-85 DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS APPROVEDx as moairiea DISAPPROVED -ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
- l. As suggested by Alan Rosenthal, DPO's should be limited to the originator's area of expertise.
- 2. The " Objectives" originally listed in Section 022 of Manual Chapter a 4125 should be retained. These objectives describe the underlying purpose of the NRC's DPO process.
- 3. In the covering memorandum distributing the Manual chapter to all employees, the EDO, on behalf of the commission, should express the Commission's continued full support for the DPO policy and process.
The memorandum should also stress the need for management to act objectively in handling DPO's and that any retaliation against-individuals who file DPO's will not be tolerated. Finally, this Manual Chapter should be distributed annually to all NRC employees as an attachment to the PPG.
-sb*
. / SIGNAlURL '
f Y-29-PS' UAIE SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
J NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
N0TATI0N V0TE
- RESPONSE SHEET T0
- SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-85 PROPOSED LICENSE TO EXPORT NUCLEAR GRADE GRAPHITE TO JAPAN (XMAT0315)
APPROVED / DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
r
^ ^ ^v /h
- 51UNAlURL 2 - p- es' DAIE SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
9 N0TATION V0TE
' RESPONSE SHFFT T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION' FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE SUBJECT,SECY-85-89 - GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION'S (GPU) REQUEST
'FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE FEE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CF
- FOR THE THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 (TMI-2)
APPROVED DISAPPROVED xx ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
In view of the present budget situation, I cannot justify granting GPU's request for an exemption from the licensing and inspection fees for TMI-2.
subsidy to GPU. In my view, this would amount to NRC approving a federal The NRC is clearly entitled to recover its full costs for services rendered to GPU for TMI-2 e U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 601 F.(Mississippi Power 2d 223 (5th Cir. and Light v.
1979)),
and Chairman Hatfield recently encouraged us to pursue full cost recovery in our licensing and inspection fees. I would also like to note that the March 21, 1985 edition of The Energy Daily carries a story that GPU spent at least $95,000 for a 2-page ad in several Pennsylvania newspapers on TMI-2 cleanup. If they can afford $95,000 for newspaper ads, then I believe they can afford to pay for the costs for services rendered by the NRC.
n
/
. k. f.e SIGNAIUNE
~ g f
T-2/~/5 DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE:
PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/
MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
N0TATION V0TE RESPONSE SHEET TO: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE SUBJECT,* SECY-85-101 - PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-788 (IN THE MATTER OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY) (LILCO)
APPROVED in part DISAPPROVED in part ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS: -
I would not take review of ALAB-788, but I would reconsider the Commission's decision on the NEPA issue.
k _ l- %
/ SIGNAIURL sr- rf DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
i
- ,~ -
~, .
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET
.T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-85-105 - FOIA APPEAL 85-A-9; ASLBP DOCUMENT WITHHELD CONCERNING NRC CONTRACT REVIEW FOR COURT REPORTER SERVICES (FOIA-84-734)
APPROVED DISAPPROVED . ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS: ,
A A_//k
~
--~ _
. SIGNAIURL surr DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
N 0 T A T.I 0 N V 0 T E.
RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
srcy-as-107 - arraAssrsas roa arenocessInc (raos SWITZERLAND To rRANCE)
APPROVED DISAPPROVED -ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
i 4 -
/ SIGNAIURL-s> rr DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF Ot!E HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEc. 80 -
N0TATF0N V0TE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
sser-as-los - PRorosso RULz To soolry azNsRAL ossIcN CRITERION 4; INTERIM SCHEDULAR EXEMPTIONS APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
y
/
^
- ~
SIGNAIURL
&// -8f DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEc. 80 -
N0TATI0N V0TE RESPONSE SHFET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-85-112 - CRITERIA ON PERSONNEL DOSIMETERS FOR OFFSITE EMERGENCY WORKERS APPROVED DISAPPROVED -ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
a
/
A, &
. SIGNAIURL 9'- 2 7 - Ff DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHFFT
.d T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SEcY-85-130 - TMI-l RESTART ORDER (CLI-85-2) -- THE COMMISSION'S CRITICISM OF STAFF'S RESPONSE TO CLI-84-18 APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING y REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
/!, - , f- .#t SIUNAIURL l
, Af'- i 7 - P $
DAIL l SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 L
NOTATION V0TE RESPONSE SHEET .
T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE SECy-85-137 - DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IN SUBJECT. '
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. NRC, NO. 84-2066, INVOLVING THE GENERAL ELECTRIC REED REPORT AND COMMISSION OPTIONS FOR PROCEEDING UPON REMAND APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS: .
/w b 4
. SIGNAIURL
%/F- C f DAIL SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
~
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:- COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-85-149 - MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENTS APPROVED DISAPPROVED ' ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
a 4.
SIGNAIURL
/ [/0 5 UAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS DEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
l I
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILx., SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE i
SUBJECT:
SECY-85-157 - FOIA APPEAL 85-A-1 (REQUEST FOR DRAFT LETTER TO CONGRESSMAN MARKEY)
APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION C0ftENTS:
-J W SIONAIUNE h?-Pf ~
DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
~
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-85-159 - FOIA-84-A-78C (APPEAL OF FOIA-84-795)
APPROVED M8AW DISAPPROVED /d PAA7 ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING ~ REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
~T_ w a a L.D 12cLrkst ALL oP PJf t
fRE & csTrD rtA7EAvstS.
^~%
SIGNAIURL C7-Pr DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
N0TATION V0TE RESPONSE SHFET ,
T0: SAMUEL J. CHILx,, SECRETARY OF THE COMISSION FROM: COMMrSS10NER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECv-8s-174 - rOIA AreEAL ss-A-18C -- DOCUMENTS RELATED TO AAMODT MOTION FOR INVESTIGATION OF RADIOACTIVE RELEASES DURING THE TMI-2 ACCIDENT.AND THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL (CDC) REVIEW OF THAT MOTION (INITIAL REQUEST FOIA-f83)
APPROVED v DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
r i
-3 -
SIGNAIURL g + rr UAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEc. 80
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHFET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
sscv-ss-175 - coroAscs os soAno NoriricArrows APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN
! NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION i ..
COMMENTS:
L I
- -^ 'd "
SIGNAIURL h T- 2 y -T DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
N 0"T A T I O N VOTE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:- COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE SUBJECT,* SECY-85 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND JURISDICTION WIT!!
RESPECT TO PART 70 MATERIALS LICENSES APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING' REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS: .
?
-9 .
[
f SIGNAIURL l- W"8 $
UAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE.ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM !F ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80
NOTATION V0TE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-85 PROPOSED ORDER MODIFYING LICENSE (EA 84-98)
FOR VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER, BRONX, NEW YORK APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
t A, 4
/ SIGNAIURL 2 - / ? -((
DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEc. 80 -
N 0"T A'T I 0 N V0TE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-85-D - OIA 1985 AUDIT PLAN APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
t w '.
SIGNAFURL ud-Ps' UAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE.ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
W A F F i R M A T'I O ti RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISS10t1 FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-85 P.OTION FOR STAY OF LOW-POWER AUTilORIZATION AND SUSPENSION OF LOW-POWER LICENSE DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN APPROVED
/ REQUEST DISCUSSION NOT PARTICIPATING COMMENTS:
~
i r
,/ ] i IW% ' -
t'f///
/ SIGNATURE
/
z-7 Pf DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESP 0flD TO AtlD/OR COMME!1T Oft OGC MEMORAfJDUM IF OflE HAS BEEF 1 ISSUED Ofl THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80
N 0"T A T I O N VOTE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J'..CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE SECY-85 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INVESTIGATIONS / INSPECTIONS
SUBJECT:
AND ADJUDICATIONS (SECY-84-276/276A) - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 0 AND 2 ESTABLISHING SPECIAL EX PARTE IN CAMERA PROCEDURES FOR RESOLVING CONFLICTS CONCERNING THE DISCL RE OR NONDISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION APPROVED r DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
L% th ' q SIGNAlVRt 2-Zd-[$
l UAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
~
~ ~ _.
N0TATION V0TE RESPONSE SHEET _
TO: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-85 REVIEW OF ALAB-776 (IN THE MATTER OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY)
APPROVED DISAPPROVED / ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
)
e
=> l'~ _ g/p W SIGNATURE L-22.-Y)
DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEc. 80 -
NOTATION V0TE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
sECv-85 REVIEW OF ALAB-775 AND ALAB-775A (IN THE MATTER OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY) l APPROVED DISAPPROVED ; ABSTAIN l NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
I would take review. I think we ought to ask the Board to explain the bases for its decision in more detail. The decision as it now stands is_ a little short on explanation. Also, I don't think the. board should have considered the two I
types of character and competence evidence separately.
1 A .
_ + fk& N SIGNAIURL
/
\ 1-m -7s l UAlt l
l SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE l MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
N 0"T TI0N V0TE RESPONSE SHEET
~
T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-85 REVIEW OF'ALAB-781 (IN Tile MATTER OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY)
APPROVED DISAPPROVED /' ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
I would take review of two issues: earthquakes and emergency planning and the class 9 accidents issue.
a
/
/
w b-SIGNAIURL 4/]
y 7,-22-F5 DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE.ALSO RESPOND T0 AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
-NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
N O'T A T I 0 N V0TE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE SECY-85 BROWN & ROOT, INC. V. DONOVAN; SCOPE OF
SUBJECT:
EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION UNDER SECTION 210 OF ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1974 APPROVED L/ DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN.
NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
A W *
. / A SIGNAIURL 2 -/ -F s' DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE.ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
~
N 0"T" Tl0N V0TE RESPONSE SHFET .-
T0: SAMUEL J CHILK, SECR$TARY OF THE COMMISSION
.FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
sECY-85 REVIEW OF ALAB-793 (IN THE MATTER OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY)
F
/ ~
APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN' .
NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION
' COMMENTS:
~
SIGNAIURL
/ Z - 2%- - ys'[
DAIL SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
!LQ_T A T I 0 N V0TE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL J. CsILx, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE SUBJE . sEcY - MOTIONS TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE IVAN SMITH IN T,MI- RESTART PROCEEDING APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS: .
- W .,4 '
. /s
- 516NAIURL 2.-E- 75 UAIE SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
NOTATION V0TE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SAMUEL-J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-85 IMPLEMENTATION OF CATEGORY B REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAM APPROVED DISAPPROVED 7 ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
I continue to believe that NRC should be designated as a " Category C" agency.
4 M
. 516NAlVRE 2 -l L-75 UAlt
! SECRETARIAT NOTEt PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
! NRC-SECY FORM DEc. 80 -
~ .,- . . . ..
N O"T A T I 0 N V0TE
~
~
RESPONSE SHEET T0:. SAMUEL J. CHILx, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
SECY-85-59-LETTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE AND ENERGY REGARDING NRC'S COMMENTS ON A REQUEST INVOLVING THE RETRANS ER OF HEU FROM CANADA TO NEST GERMANY AND RETURN APPROVED / DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING __ REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
./
'l' (yM.M/~~ < :..V c o - r SIGNAIURL
- l' ~/ ~ ~ ?f l- DAlt
! SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE -ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
y g
..- s, N0TATI0N V0TE RESPONSE SHEET T0: SiMuetJ.CHILK,SECRETARYOFTHECOMMISSION FROM: COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE
SUBJECT:
stcy-85 nac sunsarnt acr accutarrons APPROVED for publicaticalSAPPROVED ABSTAIN only NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS: -
see attached.
-+ 2
/ SIGNAIURE 3- D.- F f DAlt SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
_ - - _ _ _ _ 1
~
)
e, r
f PROPOSED SUNSHINE RULE Y
I am approving the publication of the proposed changes tc our rule implementing the. Sunshine Act in order to obtain comment on those changes. However, I have significant concerns about the difficulty of administering the proposed standard which make it impossible for. me to endorse the proposed rule.
The Sunshine Act is not an easy Act to interpret or to apply.. This is the primary reason' the Commiss'en't regulation was written as it was.
The Commission's regulation spts up a bright line for determining what constitutes a meeting and what does not. While the Commission gave up some flexibility when it set up that bright line standard, it did not do so without a reason. A standard which provided more flexibility would, of necessity, have been less certain and would have created problems of interpretation. Adopting a more flexible standard would also have made it easier for the Commission inadvertently to misapply the Act in a particular case.
The standard suggested by OGC in the proposed rule suffers from these same problems. Because the standard is vague and subjective, it will be much more difficult to administer than the present standard. Predicting whether a particular meeting will consist of discussions "sufficiently focused on discrete proposals or issues as to cause or be likely to cause the individual participating members to form reasonably firm
s 2 i positions regarding matters pending or likely to arise before the agency" will require nothing short of divination on the part of OGC.
I suggest that we try to make the standard a little more clear by describing in the statement of considerations, with somewhat more
. concrete examples, exactly what kind of "non-meetings" we have in mind.
It would also be helpful to describe how the proposed rule would change our present approach--that is, what types of meetings, if any, now held by the Commission would be treated as non-meetings under the rule.
I also suggest that when we have these " gatherings" we make it a prac-tice either to keep a tape or 'have someone present to ke'ep minutes so that if we guess wrong beforehand, and it turns out that our gathering should.really have been a meeting there will be some record of what occurred at the meeting, no matter how inadequate.
I think the Commission should also consider the usefulness of having a record of staff briefings. The proposed rule would permit the Commission to have briefings by the staff without maintaining any record of what the Commission is told during those briefings. I think that that could be unfortunate in some cases. Transcripts provide a clear record of exactly when and in what detail the Commission is informed on various issues. Given the number of inquiries that we receive from Congress and others on such issues, it would be a mistake to have'to rely on our memories alone as a basis for our response to inquiries.
And, I often find transcripts of such briefings useful to refresh my
~- . . ;
. 3 s
recollection about what various staff members have told us before~ I make a decision.
J The substitution of minutes for verbatim transcripts of closed meetings held under certain exemptions has also been suggested. I do not believe that this is a good idea. I am particularly troubled by the idea of maintaining only minutes of meetings at which we discuss issues in closed session under exemption 10. Issues decided in matters of adju-dication and litigation are important enough that we ought to have a verbatim record of what occurs. Minutes are not an adequate substitute for a verbatim transcript. I personally do not feel constrained by the.
presence of a reporter or a tape recorder at our meetings, and I think that the problems associated with using minutes rather that transcripts cutweigh any problems some Commissioners see with maintaining verbatim transcripts. Minutes do not reflect the details of what occurred during a meeting, and the person who prepares them determines how to characterize what various participants say and what is worthy of noting.
I suspect that the use of minutes only will lead to each Commissioner madly. scribbling notes during the meetings rather than thinking about what is being said during the discussion. This is likely to be both an annoyance and a distraction. Further, verbatim transcripts have another advantage in addition to those I have already mentioned. Transcripts of meetings make it much easier after memories fade to reconstruct what the position of each Commissioner vas on the issues. I would remind you of the management meeting we had last year on the operation of OIA where only a few days after the meeting we could not reconstruct whether there I r
, , . . - - <-w .
p r e.r, [, ~
3 '.f 4 M
c y; J
g '
ct I- had been a majority vote for any particular course of action. We had to
- d have the tape of the meeting transcribed in order to determine what took G place. I gather that this re(.onstruction problem was a serious one in h the early days of the Comission and that this was a key factor in the Comission's decision to keep transcripts or tapes of meetings.
In sum, while I approve of publication of the proposed rule, I hope the Coanission will give some thought to the problems I have raised before going forward with the proposed rule.
-. r ,
d$.One.M}4-
l ( ,
' VOTE -
N O T A T I-0 N RESPONSE SHEET
[ T0: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM. COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE SUBJECT.*
SECY-85-ll8 - UCS PETITION FOR EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL ACTION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION i
APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:
A " ' * " L- o e:u 7 Ar7AcH7D.
~
p__ ,k s ~,
~
.,ed
- SIGNAIURL V-u DAlt x
SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.
NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80 -
pr ;,,
. t I
o Comissioner Asselstine is not convinced that the equipment qualification program is proceeding at a fast enough pace. Further, given the history of this issue and the results of the inspections conducted by the staff thus far, Comissidner Asselstine is not sure that the industry has earned the confidence di,Iplayed by the Comission in relying so heavily on industry
< statements of' qualification and justifications for continued operation.
7 j t :s j,f a
w (j
i' b-r g;
.\
f ..
.\
, c : ?
.