ML22230A068
| ML22230A068 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/20/1977 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M771220 | |
| Download: ML22230A068 (87) | |
Text
RETURN TO ~r~p[T" QI/IT R[S'J~OS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
Hearing on GESMO Place -
Washington, D. C.
Date -
Tuesday, 20 December 1977 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE - DAILY Pages 1 -
84 Telephone :
(202 ) 347-3700
DISCLAIMER This is an unoffici~l transcript o a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 2v 7
in the Commission 1s offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washingt n, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendince and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
r, CR 5883
- ~.OCK 2
I 3
I -
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Hearing on GESMO Tuesday, 20 December 1977 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Whereupon, the hearing convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m.,
BEFORE:
COMMISSIONER JOSEPH M HENDRIE, CHJl,IRMAN COMMISSIONER RICHARDT. KENNEDY COMMISSIONER VICTOR GILINSKY COMMISSIONE_R PETER BRADFORD 1
['
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 2
P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We will come to order.
This meeting is one of our favorite subjects; what to do with the GESMO proceeding and with the associated plu-tonium recycle related license applications that are in var-ious stages before the Commission.
When we met last, we agreed on some things and very nearly agreed on others.
But it was clear we weren't going to be able to conclude then, and so we have scheduled this meeting.
We are all aware that we are pressed to come to some decision in the matter in time to file appropriate papers in a Supreme Court proceeding that relates.
The General Counsel's office has provided us with a draft order, and I think we could usefully turn directly to it. It seems to me that it probably will be necessary for us to be fairly explicit about agreements :and disagreements on words, and I think looking at the paper is the best way to come to it.
COMM:ISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think it might be useful before turning to the order to ask the Staff to quickly run through and summarize the paper which they provided so ef-fectively.
MR. PEDERSEON:
You mean the one covering the various facilities?
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fede Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN-lHENDRIE : I think you mean both the memorandum attached *to the draft.or the --
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
This describes the status of the --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Of the various facility proceed-ings.
Okay; I just got that thii.ng in hand as I came in, as a matter of fact.
So that is a good idea.
Could we do that briefly, and who would take that chore?
MR. *SHAPAR:
I think::Homer..
MR. LOWENBERG:
There are basically 14 facilities that are involved by docket and entries.
Actually, it is a little hard to follow -the number 14, but the way it works out is Barnwell actually has.five different entries for it, so that makes up the numper.
In a review-of the facilities,.the Exxon facility is the largest individual plant and it was actually initiated in early '76.and involves about a 2100 ton per year reprocess-
- ing facility, including all parts of a reprocessing plant, which is separations, plutonium conversions, uranium conver..--
sions and waste disposal.
And it would have or~ginally been planned to be operational in the time frame of about 1985, 1986.
Proceedings were initiated early this year and th.e
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 safeguard review was completed in the last two months.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The safeguard review was completed?
MR. LOWENBERG:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What is the conclusion of that safeguards review?
4 MR *. LOWENBERG:
Well, there were questions tendered to the applicant and responses were completed -..,.. I shouldn I t say the safeguards review was completed7 the initial Staff analysis which resulted in questions, were forwarded to the applicant.
The. __ application provided his responses _this year, but the review has not been --. the Staff review has not been COMMISSIONE~ KENNEDY:
That's what I was wondering.
MR. LOWENBERG: -- completed.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Thank you.
MR..LOWENBERG:
I said it wrong.
The Exxon facility, I guess, is the most expensive of the facilities involved.
An~ it is projected to be in the range of about $1 billion at completion.
The Barnwell facility, as I mentioned before, is made up of a group of separate dockets.
The separations plant, which is*the one that is the* most commonly referred to, is a 1500 ton per year facility.
COJvT_MISSIONER GILINSKY:
Home~, could we just return
l 2
I 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 5
to Exxon.
That hasn't proceeded beyond the paper stage?
MR. LOWENBERG:
No, sir; it has not.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
MR. LOWENBERG:
Proceedings were initiated but were suspended and then kind of negotiated.
But currently, there are no proceedings underway.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: There is no staff position established?
Nothing has beeri done to the site?
MR. LOWENBERG:
Nothing has been done to the site.
COMMJSSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
MR. LOWENBERG:
In the Barnwell facility, the separations part of it, is a plant which would process 1500 tons of light wate.r reactor fuel per year and the end product of that facility would be uranium nitrate and plutonium nitrate.
That action was initiated in late 1 68, and a pro....
visional construction permit was issued in late 1970.
The Staff review was essentially c~ose to completion, about in
- the 90 percent range.
And presently, the proceedings are suspended, basically for resolution of generic GESMO issues, before they can be --
COMMISSIONER GILINKSY:
In other words, the hearing also MR. LOWENBERG:
The heari!}gs had started on the
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I
23
'1* A<~F* Reporten, ~"~
25 I
I 6
environmental issues.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I see, but not on the safet issues.
MR. LOWENBERG:
Well, __
COMMISSI-ONER GILINSKY:
Presumably not if the Staff is only 90 percent complete.
MR~ LOWENBERG:
Yes, but it was not initiated on the safety; only on the environmental~
The Staff review has not been entirely finalized and that is one of the matters that I think the Staff would be interested in d9ing that, is preserving the amount of the re-view that has been done and bringing it together into some finalized position, a completed analysis of subcontracting work and so forth, sq that all that effort would not be wasted in the event that-~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Now# was the environmental hearing completed?
MR. LOWENBERG:
No, it was not completed.
It was initiated but not completed.
Many of the issues that are addressed in the hear-ing are related to the generic questions relating to GESMO, and could not be finally brought to a conclusion in the environmental hearing, because they are generic type ques~
tions.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's seei let me understand:
2 I
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 11.ce-Fe Reporters, Inc.
25 The portion of the Staff work on the Barnwell application,. that you think it would be useful to preserve; the safety review?
MR. LOWENBERG:
Primarily, yes.
CHAIRMAN-HENDRIE; *which is 90 percent complete?
MR. LOWENBERG:
Yes; right.
Right.
7 There are things like the seismic analysis and things of that nature where-they were contracted for reviews and so forth, which should.be brought to some orderly position of a report or something, a document, the results, so they shouldn '*t all b~ left at loose ends.
The complementary parts of the Barnwell facility include a fuel receiving and storage station, which has re~
ceived a separate docketing number and application. And it was really initially part of the total plant, but it was broken apart subsequently.
That facility was initially designed at 400 tons per year, and there is the ability to expand that to about 1000 tons a year in the event that the applicant would choose to do that.
That.could be done by reracking
- similar to the way reactor, or the util.ities have handled their activities.
But at this point COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY:
Why do you. s.ay tons per year.?
MR. LOWENBERG:
Well,. it shouldn '*t be tons per
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
- ce-Fed.eporters, 7n~.
25 year.
It is tons.
That is incorrect.
It should be tons.
It is not a rate, it is a total storage capcity.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
When were these applica-tions separated out?
MRa LOWENBERG: r guess it was around 1976.
Pete?
VOICE:
Mid-'74.
COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY:
Mid-l74.
VOICE:
For the-fuel receivi~ga MR. LOWENBERG:
Okay.
.'-7 4.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And was there any particula reason for that?
MR. LOWENBERG: I think that the reason was that it was clear that there would be a possible hold-up on the.
separation facility and there was some emphasis to try to deal with the _storag:e capabilities so that at least that part of the facility could be used to --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I see.
MR. LOWENBERG:
-- provide for storage capacity.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In effect, in order to permit this part to get going.
MR. LOWENBERG:*
That's right; yes.
Other parts of the Barnwell facility include the UF6 facility which is designed to match the separations
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 9
plant which is 1500 tons per year.
And it was a part of the,
original application and it is essentially complete; that is, it is further advanced/ really, than the separations plant.
And it is essentially directly coupled to the separations plant, -size-wise and process-wise.
And it would convert the uranium product to UF 6 which then could be shipped directly to enriching facilities for isotopic re-enrichment.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Now is that one caught up in GESMO?
MR *. LOWENBERG:
Well, it is in the.sense that there is no point in licensing a UF6 facility if you don't have anything to feed to which is the separations plant.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, that is the practical aspect of it.
MR. LOWENBERG:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But in terms of any bars or prohibitions?
MR. LOWENBERG: I W01:].ld think only *the issue of
- what is the problem of_ recycling uranium, which is part of the GESMO proceeding, with trace elements and things like that involved, so it is partially caught up in the GESMO proceed-ings, yes.
Because the iecyle of uranium through a diffusion
.plant is part of the GESMO issue:
What are the.effects of that part of the fuel cycle.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fe Reporters, Inc.
25 11 to the cost to complete all of these facilities?
MR. LOWENBERG:
Well, there are two.basic facili-ties that have never. been started that remain to be designed and constructed, wh.ich are the plutonium conversion facility and the waste solidification facility.
If you ask seven people, you get seven.different answers on the cost of these facilities.
But I would judge them to be about of similar value to the cost that has already been invested, in that range.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Another $300 million.
MR. LOWENBERG:
$200 to $300 million; something in that range.
But you could get other numbers, I am sure, if you*ask COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Earlier, you said the number of~- in fact, I thought they had to add $750 million to complete the entir_e package.
MR.** LOWENBERG:
Well, that sounds on the high side to me.
I wouldn't think it would be that much.
Now, that may include startup costs or a.lot of other things which
-I -- I thought we were talking about capital investment.
I can't iri my own mind believe that the separations plant, which would normally be the most expensive part of the facilities, would be exceeded by a factor of two by the re..,.._
maining portions.
It doesn't make sense.
COMMlSSIONER GILINSKY:
Of course, in part it was
- --~~--------------------------------------,,,
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ace-Fee.Reporters, 7n~.
25 10 COMMISSIOOER GILINSKY: But when the court said that it couldn't in general license for the completion of the GESMO proeeding, does that affect --
MR. LOWENBERG:
I would think that if you are talking about recyc~e related facilities; yes.
Because this plant is only for handling recycle uranium.
Plutonium doesn't go through the plant except as a trace element.
The p*lant is desi~ned for the conversion of recycle uranium.
So in a logical -sense, I would think the plant is tied to the court decision.
You see, it is not a plant that is designed for taking natural or fresh uranium.
I guess you could do that, but it certainly was never planned that way.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Do y.ou have an estimate of these plants that are in various stages of completion at Barnwell, do you have an estimate of the investment of these; roughly?
MR. LOWENBERG:
I would be g_uessing.
Maybe Pete would have a better number*:*
Pete, do you have some good:numbers on the value of
.the Barnwell facility*; the estimated costs?
- coMMISSIONER KENNEDY: What has been invested in them up until now?
VOICE:
I believe it is in the order of $200 to
$300 million.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And how does that compare
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 12 built with different dollars.
MR. LOWENBERG:
If you look at constant dollars, which is what I was thinking of~-
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So the $200 to $300 million may go up, is what you are saying.
MR. LOWENBERG:
Yes, but if you are looking at in-flation, sure.
In seven years, you are goi~g to double the cost by just inflationary --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So you are saying in corn....
parable dollars.
MR. LOWENBERG:
I would think about in that range; yes, to complete the facilities.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Could be clip along here at a good pace, Horner?
MR. LOWENBERG:
Yes.
Okay.
Well, the-rest of the parts of.the Barnwell thingr I think, we have covered, so we can jump over those.
The next major facility is the Westinghouse recycle fuel plant, which was designed to be a 200 ton per ton light water reactor reycle mixed oxide facility with the ability to expand to 400 tons.
The action on that started in rnid....-'73, and the Staff review was essentially completed at the end of
'75. However, the Staff-analyses have not been publicly re-leased as of this date.
And essentially work has kind of
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
~ce-Fed Reporters, Inc.
25 13 tailed off following the November '75 policy statement which*
related to anticipating favorable review on recycle., to justi..,..
fy a facility.
The remaining facilities are all~-
COMMISSI*ONER GIL IN SKY:
Could I MR. LOWENBERG:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER-GILINSKY:
Excuse me.
Has anythin,g been done to that site?
MR. LOWENBERG: To the site?
To the best of my knowledge, other than initial borings or soil investigations, things like that, I don't think that Westinghouse p.as pro.,.
ceeded~
They gathered up the property, and you know, but I don't think that major construction -- there was no approval of any sorts given and I don't think Westinghouse -- I think they did probably soil tests and hydrol~gy tests and backgroun radiation tests in preparation.
Beyond that, I don't think they have done much.-
The remaining facilities are all the s.o-called pilot type ones, and I can run.through those relatively
- quickly, believe.
The first one is also Westinghouse which is the Cheswick facility which can possess about 100 to 120 kilograms of plutonium.
They are presently working making some fuel for EBR-2.
They *don't at the present time have work projected beyond the end 6f '78.
The ori~inal license was issued to
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-Federol Reporters, Inc.
25 them in early '69.
And there would be a license renewal action contemplated by the Staff in early _'78, since the plant is up for renewal.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
How is that affected?
MR. LOWNEBERG:.. How it is affected?
14 Well, it might or not be affected, depending on how the Commission rules with regard to the pilot type fac-ilities, or the small nonproduction type facilities.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It is not affected at the moment by the court decision?
MR *. LOWNEBERG: We wouldn't think so; no..
MR. NELSON:
That's correct
- MR. LOWNEBERG:
In fact, all of the rest of them would not be affected _by that court decision~
When we change from *the production type to the pilot type facilities, I think we sort of bridge the gap there.
The.facility that is probably the most famous --
or infamous or what ever you want to call it is.the NUMEC facility which is presently run by B&W; it was *the earliest facility to commercially handle plutonium and was originally licensed in late 1960: It is presently involved in making fuel for the FFTF follow-on cores.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I notice the license ex-pired in July '68.
MR. LOWENBERG:
Yes, but it is on the timely
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
~ce-Fed Reporters, Inc.
25 15 renewal.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I understand that.
Why hasn't that been acted on?
MR. LOWENBERG:
- Well, there have been many efforts on the Staff's part-to c_omplete the renewal of that and we have asked the applicant for much additional information which they have provided, but is one of the renewals that has not been able to be completed.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
How many such renewals are there?
MR.. LOWENBERG:
I don'.t know the total :p.urnber of all of them, but the renewals are always the kind of thing that when the budget cuts hit and there are active cases, the renewals are the ones that_ get split off.
COMMISSIONER.KENNEEDY-:
I wonder if the Staff-.-
MR. LOWNE~ERG: It is the way of life~
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
-- would be so kind as to provide a comprehensive list of all such actions that are now with the Staff, any place.. Every day we get a new one.
And I would -like* a comprehensive list on the top of my desk of all timely renewals that are with the Staff, any pl_ace.
And then we *could take a look at the budget ques-tion in *tha t-*co.ntext.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Maybe if we just changed the name to untimely renewal --
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 16 CHAIRMAN HENRIE:
You will have to shake out the reactor side, the materials side, the by-product licenses and the whole MR. LOWENBERG:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Could you give me an indica-tion of when I might get it? Right:now I am_getting it one a day.
I guess I would rather get them all at once.
And I only get them -- I am only getting them, indeed, when some-thing brings them to light~
And so I am now trying to cast the light over the entire organization at one time.
Could you give me an _indication of how long it will take?
MR. LOWENBERG:
I would say within a week.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Thank you..
I will be lookin forward to them.
(Pause.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Anything,else to say about the others here?
MR. LOWENBERG:
Well, the General Electric facility at Pleasanton, California, that has the ability to have
- -license limit of 150 kilograms of plutonim:n; that facility was actually licensed in late '66 and is also in the timely renewal situation.
CHAIRMAN HENRIE:
As of when?
MR. LOWENBERG: *. As of 1973.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It says the license was
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-Fe Reporters, Inc.
25 due to expire August 31, 1971.
renewals.
MR. L0WENBERG: It was extended to '73.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We would have fewer timely COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That '*s right.
MR. L0WENBERG:
So this one is one --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
17 MR. L0WENBERG: The next one is one that has been renewed, Atomic's International.
It is quite a small fac..,..
ility, from the plutonium standpoint. It handles other materials of a uranium nature.
And it was licensed originally in 1956.
The license was renewed in September of this year.
It has presently been reviewed from a safeguards standpoint to handle under 2000_grams of plutonium.
The Exxon facility in Richland, Washington, which is a mixed oxide fabrication plant, has authority to possess between 90 and 100 ki~ograms of plutonium in oxide form.
It was licensed originally in March of '72-and it is expected that it will be up for renewal.in '79.
Its license expires
- in mid-'79.
They are currently storing some fuel there that made for the Big Rock Point reactor.
It is not being used at Big Rock.
It is kept in storage by Exxon~
Batelle Columbus has a very small plutonium fac....
ility and it is mainly for examination of irradiated fuels.
I_
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 18 But they also have some ability to make some mixed oxide fuel
- And they also service a prime contract with DOE, and actually have some plutonium -activities_going on there that are license exempt from that standpoint.
They have been reviewed safeguards-wise for handlin_
under 2000 grams of plutonium.
And the present license ex-pired 1 74 and they are on a timely renewal basis, also.
The last facility is the Kerr-McGee facility in Oklahoma.
And it is presently in a standby status;to handle material in active processing, they would have to apply for a license amendment.
Their present license merely_allows them to possess the material they have held up in the equipment tha is there, which is estimated in the range of about 12 kilo-grams.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Material which is hard to get out?
MR. LOWENBERG:
Which is essentially tied to the equipment, right.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, let me ask. you:
It says the possession license is_ goi!)-g to expire at some point.
It says 19 82..
What happens then?
MR. LOWENBERG:
They either have to decommission :*or apply for renewal to continue their standby condition.
In other words, they are al"lowed to keep the plant in the status it is now --
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Feo Reporters, Inc.
25 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Oh, I see.
They are on standby.
MR. LOWEN.BERG:
They are on standby.
To operate, they have to apply for a license amendment.
I thought I mentioned that.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
MR. LOWENBERG:
They are licensed to be in standby, only, not to operate..
To operate, they have/_to apply for a license amendment to possess SNM.
Their only possession now is what is tied up in the equipment._
They don't have any possession auth9rity to possess working material.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Thank you.
MR. LOWENBERG': -- Howard points out there is one facility that wasn't m.entioned here and that is the Nuclear Fuel Services reprocessing plant, which -- they have announced they are going out of business.
And basically, they are in a nonoperative mode.-
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So they also have a pos~
session license?
MR. LOWNEBERG:
For what ever is tied up in the equipment and what ever fuel they have_ got s'bbred in the pool, yes.
COMMISSIONER-GILINSKY:
And what is there in th_e way of recycle activity in reactors?
MR. LOWENBERG:
The only reactors that have mixed
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A.ce-Feder Reporters, Inc.
25 20 oxide fuel in their cores are Quad Cities 1, Big Rock Point and Dresden l; those three.
And they are all what is termed lead assembly type irradi~tion program.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I thought Big Rock was more than that.
The others are very small; aren't they?
MR. LOWENBERG:
Big Rock is a very small reactor to start with, very small.
Quad Cities 1 is the only com-mercially, really commercial size plant that has mixed oxide.
And the extra fuel for Big Rock is still in stor-age at Exxon.
And Exxon possession limit includes that fuel.
It is completed and ready to use but it is ~ept in a storage facility out at Richland.
- (Pause.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Let's see; should we -- why don't we_ grapple. with the draft order langu_age.
Okay?
We could ask for further remarks on the legal anal.,..
ysis attached to the draft order, but it seems to me it is pretty well repeated, summarized, - thi~gs that have been said here before.
And I didn't find anything there that I didntt understand, unless there are some comments, Jerry, that you or Rich would like to make with regard to the matter?
(No response.)
Okay."
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 21 In the matter of the ACRS, page one
- Aside. from misspelli~gs and commas which I didn't read carefully enough to catch, if there*are any -- I didn'-t see any -- I didn' t find anythi~g that I wanted to ch.ange.
Any comments?.
By the way, I am assuming we all recognize the
.,,r *.
need for an order of this_ kind.
So that I am not launching a sort of word-by-word examination only to find at the end that:
No, no; we weren't interested anyway, no:::matter how well worded.
Okay.
Page two, it seems.to me that I might be able to get down* a couple of inches on the page to: ;..:,
"The Commission decided at public meet-ings in December 1977... "
Do I have any comments above that_point?
(Laughter*. )
- Well, there you see.
Now, with a background of consensus of that kind, why I look forward to having*this
- meeting over in about three minutes.
(Laughter.)
Okay.
Now, the counsel 1 s draft goes ahead and avoids the nomenclature difficulty that we had here last time about terminate.*:.I **think we ought* to talk* some about that la~gu~ge
I I.
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
~ce*Federa1 Reporters, Inc.
25 22 and possible variations of compromises
- I think the order, this order could for the pur-poses for which it is intended, :which is to announce the thrus of the Commission's decision and allow the counsel to go forward in the Supreme Court case, it seems to me that this la~guage could be used.
It then leaves the terminate versus defer question open.
And it would seem to me that we would have in any event to close fairly quickly on which of those terms apply, because I think we have an obligation to notify, if nobody else, the GESMO. board members, whether they_ s ti 11 should. re-gard themselves as board members or are discharged of their GESMO duties* and association.
I don't know that they are waiting breathlessly or are allowing their lives and affairs to be unduly affected,.
but I think we would_have to comment and either decide that that board would remain nominally in place or not, and sim..-
ilarly, that there would be a docket open, or there wouldn't be one open.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Right.
What you are saying is that it is more than just a matter of words.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
I:think -- it does seem to me that if we wanted* to in effect beg the question in order to get this order out and the court thing, that we could use the counsel's words.
But I am sayi~g that I think
I
- r.
- I 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13
- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 23 we have that that doesn't solve the problem, that I think we sort of the next day have to sit down and decide and come to some conclusion on whether we want to say terminate or defer.
I am not sure that there are any other variations
- of language that have occurred to people.
What we need is a word that can mean terminate or defer, depending on the interpretation of the individual, a word like evidence, for instance.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, not, but you were saying earlier, and I think I agree with you, that it isn't just a matter of.. the word.
You have to decide what you do about the board, the par.ties.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Is there an open docket~ or isn't there an open docket.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, it is important to decide what it is we intend.
Then we can describe that accurately.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But if for instance that dis~
cussion but I do think we need to move the order, and if that discussion became sort of deadlocked for further time, then I would want to come back and.suggest that we consider the in effect, intermediate language here in order to allow the Commission's thrust to be enunciated and the counsel to
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 24 go and file the papers with the Supreme Court.
MR. MALLORY:
Mr. Chairman, there are several de-tails in here that the Commission didn't pass on last time.
That is correct, and I would suggest that perhaps those should be taken up as soon* as possible.
MR. SHAPAR:
There is also the point that Homer made in the earlier discussion about whether or not he should be allowed to continue some cleanup work, word processing --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
There are several provisions.in here which I wanted to see one way. pr another.
Okay.-*
Now, let's see.
- With regard to the terminate-defer language at root, I.guess I continue to much prefer deferral.
Mr. *Kennedy's thrust, I believe, is deferral~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I am a terminate man myself CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You are a terminate man.
And Peter?
COMMISSIONER BRADFOE.I):
I prefer terminate.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Could we describe what we mean by each of these terms?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It might be helpful.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What does terminate imply?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, it
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 25
' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I was wondering in the minds of those who have settled upon it as the word of magic.
CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE:
Okay.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, as far as I am con-cerned, it means stop, with the possibility of resuming con-sideration of the subject at a future time.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is what I thought de-fer meant.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It doesn't even mean that unless you add a paragraph afterwards which says that you might resume copsideration.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's what I thought defer meant.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, if I were describing defer, I would say there was a possibility of resuming the proceeding, rather than resuming consideration of the subject.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Well, how would you resume consideration of the subject without a proceeding?
CHAIRMAN GILINSKY: ~tis not necessarily the same:
- proceeding.
COMJVIISSIONER BRADFORD:
You would have a new pro-ceeding.
COMMISSIONER-KENNEDY:
But it would be a proceed-ing?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 26 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Presumably, unless --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You could consider whether to have the proceeding.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You are going to look down the line, and I don't ki).ow whether out of re-evaluations and so on there may come legislation which somewhat alters the frame-work here.
It is certainly a clear possibility.
I don't know that it will happen, but it is a clear possibility.
MR. SHAPAR:
Are you applying this discussion both to the GESMO proceeding, which ever word you pick,and the license applications' question?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, at the moment, it is with regard to the GESMO proceeding, and we will take up license applications and so on.
MR. MALLORY:
. I*think that.in either case we will be spelling out in more detail, even in this brief order, what we mean by what will ~appen about resuming consideration of the issues or resuming the proceeding.
And --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Excuse me.
You say we are going to be spelling that out more in this brief order?
.I guess I would want to see that before I --
MR. MALLORY:
Well, that is --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
-- reach any conclusions.
MR. MALLORY:
That is what I meant by paragraph
l 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fed Reporters, Inc.
25 27 three on page two.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In other words, just referring to the fact, about the other provisions in this order.
MR. MALLORY:
All I mean to say is that people are not left to infer solely from the use of the term terminate or defer what we mean by a re-examinat:Lon, and therefore, which term is selected is not as important as it might be if we didn't do that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But the words used to de-scribe all that.become vastly more important.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seems to --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If you don't add those, I am not sure what it is that we are discussing.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: As I view the~- as I view the proposition, from my ~wn standpoint, it seems to me that it is impractical for the proceeding, the.GESMO proceeding, to go ahead at.the present time.
And we all agree on that, I think.
I agree that at such time as one m~ght want to resume it or some similar proposition, that indeed because they have other business at hand, you might very well have.
to reconstitute the board.
The same people ~ight not be available.
It will.undoubtedly consider a wider range of
l 2
3 4
5 6
' 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 28 subjects than -- well, it may consider a wider range of subject than the present proceeding.
It is possible that you might want to consider a s what different procedural format.
I concede all of these things.
What does seem to me to be important is that we agree to re-examine the matter in an appropriate time and say so explictly.
For my purposes; the language here is perfectly adequate.
We have agreed.to publish the draft safeguards supplement, in any case, so that is sort of a noncontroversial conclusion of the order..
Withdrawing the '75 policy statement.
I think that is certai.nly noncontroversial The other thing about which we might argue and which is important in my view is to hold aside the question of whether -- and not to close out nhe possibility that the Barnwell facility, after appropriate review and so on, might be utilized for developm~ntal purposes in connection
- With the nonproliferation program.--
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What is the CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
or things that may follow from the fuel cycle evaluation and so on.
.So I would like to see that COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What is the effect of this
I
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 f-ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 29 order as it is presently drafted in the minds of ELD and the Staff on the other licensed --
CHAIRMAN.. HENDRIE:
Could I go ahead and complete the thrust of --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes, sure.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
the thrust of this some-what tedious exposition of position.
Okay?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Don't forget my question.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I hope not.
Now,. if we can preserve these elements of what I call the "after language," the agreement to re-examine at some appropriate time a couple of years down the line and preserving an option on the constructed portions of the Barnwell facility, then I have considerably less difficulty with the difference between terminate and defer, even though I would much prefer.. :to. see the language say defer.
And if that after language can be preserved in an adequate form, **then~* if necess~ry, I am willi~g to reconsider my cbaice.of the lead word on -- with regard to the GESM0 proceeding.
gard Now, on the question that Dick raises with re-to the recycle related license applications --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
All the plants*that are now operating in one way or another.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
. 10
. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fo Reporters, Inc.
25 30 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I thought we had agreed last time, but maybe I am recollecting too optimistically, that we had agreed that the seven smaller facilities that are in operation, that we would not pull the licenses on those, that those would go ahead, that those fell appropriately under the experimental purposes language and should be allowed to continue.
Although I think we might pay some attention to renewing their licenses.
Is that---
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is my understanding, but the order doesn't confirm that.
I think it would be well to do so.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I thought it did.
CHARIMAN HENDRIE:
Well, let me ask ju~t first.
Does that reflect a sort of agreement among us here, and then we can see whether the language-~
You.were about to say something.
CO.MMISSIONER BRADFORD: I had thought that what we had done last time was to indicate that we would wait until we saw the article appraising us of the status of the facilities.
I don't remember anything inconsistent with what you said, other than that I thought we waited on a final de-cision until we saw the NMSS summary of what each of the facilities was that is involved.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ce-Fe.Reporters, ~n~.
25 31 But I don't anything inconsistent with what you suggested, other than that I am not sure that we actually did that last time.
CHAiffi/f..AN HENDRIE:
Yes; okay.
But from the summary this morning, do you find it inconsistent with --.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- your own views?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, I don't.
I do think that in view of the recent Chatfield experience, it would be well to move ahead with what ever is necessary to put the houses in order.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes; it does seem to be the case that those timely renewal-. situations are desirable~
Okay,.now; with regard to the la!}guage here, I think that was the i~tent of the language, and it could be for the purposes of -the present draft order, eith-er we could-understand that that is the thrust, or add -- make amendments as people think MR. MALLORY:
Well, 2-A mentions them generally.
And then on page three, the last large paragraph, mentions all the affected proceedings and one of the small plants there are listed there. * -So I think that makes it pretty clear what ip covered and what is not.
MR. SHAPAR:
Well, it could state explicitly:
2 3
4 s
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 32 the following proceedings are not affected and mention them by name if* you.wanted to.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: All of them are affected by the ord~r one way or another.
MR. MALLORY:
Well, the intent of *the drafting is to leave them unaffected
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
By the order.
MR. MALLORY:
By the order; yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There are sort of secondary effects from the change and thrust of those.
MR. ~LORY:
They are also exempted from the Second Circuit decision, small scale and experimental cases.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That is that there is no GESMO necessary to tha.se facilities?
MR. MALLORY:
Yes.
The purpose of GiSMO was wide scale use.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Was that explicit in the suit?
MR. MALLORY:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Qkay.
.In that case, I think, this language then and with the understanding of this discussion, is ample for the purpose.
Now, comments?*
COMMISSIONER GILINKSY:
Let me ask you:
With *regard to the Barnwell facility, why do we
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
.33 need to say anything at all here?
MR. MALLORY:
Paragraph six.
It is mentioned in the vetoed DOE appropriations bill.
Whether language like that will ultimately be passed, I don't know.
But the:. bill mentioned appropriating funds for a study of whether Barnwell could be used to support the na-tion's nonproliferation objectives.
If that kind of use can be done without interfering with the Second.;..._ without cross-ing the Second Circuit's ruling, and if -- I think that should be left open~
It is the purpose of the third line in paragraph six to limit* it to that, the area within the Second Circuit COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me understand.
Are you talking about running the Barnwell separation facility
- or are you talking about s.ome kind of non-.-.reproGessing act-vity?
MR. MALLORY:
Well --*
MR. LOWENBERG:
I dqnit think at this time we know.
- ERDA has a program underway, a six month study oh'.which they plan.. to spend close to $1 million, to analyze how they might use the Barnwell facility in conjunction with the nonprolif-eration objectives MC and NASA.*
So they may indeed come up with some program *.
Specifically what the program is, we don't know.
I think
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fe Reporters, Inc.
25 34 Rich's draft here was just to cover what eventuality they come up with.
COMMISSIONER GILINKSY:
Well, let me ask you:
Suppose you leave it out.
In what way have you not covered this eventuality?
MR. MALLORY:
I think it is possible that you could interpret what would be left at a later time not to exclude this.
This makes it clearer.
In other words,
- if you omitted paragraph six, you could come back at a later time and interpret the remainder of the order to_ say:
Well, we can still do this.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But it could be argued MR. MALLORY:
It could be argued that --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
that the order did preclude it.
MR. MALLORY:
And it is open to argument.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And I think indeed at such time the Commission would be in a substantially stronger position if it had recognized this possibility at the beginning.
MR. MALLORY:
Particularly since Barnwell is mentioned explicitly in the paragraph.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
As bei~g one of those affected.
MR. MALLORY:
Right.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think it is conceivable to me that down the line we might decide that we had to grit our teeth and do as.well as we could reprocessing or some variation on it.
35 You migh-t find it very useful to have a place to practice some of the on a demonstration, experimental basis, practice some of the on-line material accounti!lg tech-niques that might be used to improve your grip on that kind of operation, and I can see assorted other uses of that kind.
I_ ju?t don I t want to be in a position where we appear to have to*go and dig up the graveyard in order to make it possible.* I would like that possibility recognized now in our order language~
MR. MALLORY:
Now, it is possible that--* well, if the facility were under contract to DOE strictly for them and other their control in some particula! way, we would not license it.
And it could be used without any licensing.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDr:
But regularly, DOE has
- been indicating that facilities of this kind, they would pro~
pose to put forward for licensing.
They have not been seeking licensing exemptions.
Isn't that correct?
MR. MALLORY:
I am not aware that they have been seeking any.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 36 MR. SHAPAR:
Well, they haven't.in many cases actually asked for licenses, but they have asked for licensing type reviews.
COMMISSIONER_GILINKSY:
Well, I wouldn't like this to be a kind of back door that would lend itself to basically unde:gnining the thrust of current policy on this subject..
MR. MALLORY:
Well, I COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I dontt think it would undermine current policy.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Don't you think the* language here about experimental and feasible --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I just don't see the need to raise this at all, at this point.*
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don 1 t understand the thrust of your argument.. It says, "which support national nonproliferation objectives."
That is consistent with current
_ policy.
Is our concern the possiblity the policy itself may change, but we should not?
- Is that what we are trying to say?
CCM-ITSSIONER <:;ILINSKY:*-we11,would you like to put it in~ for non-reproce~sing purpose~ here?.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That covers some of it, but I am not -- the potential uses that I can see and that I would like some flexibility on and recognition of at this time, would
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 6-ce-Fe,derol Reporters, Inc.
25 37 include -- that, after all, is what it would be most useful for, if some use were to be made of it in that in the con;_
text of the nonproliferation effort and use it as an experi-mental and practice facility or primarily instrumental develop-ments, I would guess-.
Although perhaps some process development would allow you to have a better grip.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There is no national policy of which I am aware which says that we forego reprocessing for all time.
The ~ational policy that I am aware of simply says we are pausing to look at alternative ways of developing the fuel cycle that will be more proliferation-proof.
But it is c1;lways stated as well that this does*
not forego for all time reprocess~ng.
That is my understand-ing of current national policy.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, you know, the reason for the President taking the view that he had on domestic activities on this sort is to t~y to bring domestic and for-eign policy into some sort of congruence.
And it is very hard to go and ask people abroad to stop further commitment to use of plutonium or nuclear ex-plosive material if we ourselves are not willing to put some constraints on our own activities.
And there are*a lot of suspicions abroad that this
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 11.ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 38 is really just a scheme to get ahead of them technically, one way or another, to slow them down.
And I wouldn't like any step of this sort to lend itself to that sort of suspicion, because that would in effect undermine the purpose of the President's policy, with which I happen to agree.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That seems to be..:.._
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: There is another suspicion abroad which has been stated publicly by a number of senior officials abroad that the national effort right now really is not as it is sta_ted, but that in fact it is not a p~use we seek, that many of the actions we are proposing are really a smoke screen for a permanent termination of reprocessing, al~
though our public stat~ments are to the contrary.
Now this statement, it seems to me, is wholly con-sistent with our present statements, public statements, and thus, would tend to s.upport,.at least, the public posture in this regard that we are taking vis-a..,.vis our colleagues abroad.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is certainly consistent with the Tokai and more stringent~in the sense that, you know, it is not operating,,,*, but don I t take the output and put it in fuel.
It is not operating and won't operate unless there is a specific experimental or demonstration sort of use for it.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, let me say --
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13
- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 39 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or, you know, unless down the line people say:
Okay; now, we considered the whole thing and the national policy now goes back to going ahead.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, first of all, it
-- leaving paragraph six out doesn't preclude examining various possibilities in the future.
I think to put it in is to encourage activities, reprocessing activities, or at least to offer some degree of encouragement toward that end.
And that is something which I think is inappropriate here.
- The President,.among other things has said there will be no federal.encouraqement of reprocessing at that site until further notice.
COMM:ISSIONER KENNEDY':
All this is taking account of is that possible further notice.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKEY:
I don't --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
When and if it comes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't. think this is the place to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I can't support language that says to terminate, then.
MR. LOWENBERG:
The Congress specifically asked DOE to perform these studies and to report back to them within six months on what to do with that facility *. That was right in the authorization bill.
So this is just taking cognizance of the fact that
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 40 someone has asked for a consideration of whether that facility could be used for activities that would be considered to be supportive of the nation's nonproliferation policy.
COMMISSIONER GILINKSY: Well, that's right, but leaving it out does not preclude that examination. It doesn't preclude our taking it up at some future date.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I wonder, Rich, if I could ask you a couple -- perhaps to repeat a couple of things that you have already said, but I am not sure I quite understood them.
Ast<? Barnwell as it is presently conte~plated, I take it to issue a license would require that a GESMO pro-ceeding has been completed first?
MR. MALLORY:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
So what you are doing here is partly definitional.
MR. NELDSON:
Under the decision of the Second Circuit, yes.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But what you are doing here is partly definitional; that is, by cranking it down to a low enough level in terms of experimental and feasibility, you are eventually getting it down into that clasi of facilities that the Second Circuit ~aid could be licensed.
MR. NELSON:
And the President.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
And okay.
The
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A,JI Report~,,~~-
25 41 President said it somewhat differently.
But that -- and the other language you quoted was from the President's.detailed message on the ERDA authorization MR. MALLORY:
No.
The language in paragraph six?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, no; the language re-garding possible future uses of Barnwell.
MR. MALLORY:
It was to support the nation's non-proliferation objective, from the vetoed authorization bill.
itself.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Not the veto but the bill MR. MALLORY:
The bill itself.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The bill itself.
MR. MALLORY:
The third line, "experimental and feasibility purposes on a noncommercial basis," is essentially from the Second'Gircuit's decision.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Did the President's veto message discuss-the Ba~nwell facility?
MR. MALLORY:
Not that I recall, but I cantt say that it didn't.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I really don't see the need for taking this up.
What one -is: *doi~g is sort of nudging things in that direction.
I think that's what we want to do.
The door, as far as leaving the door open to con-sidering various kinds of experimental activities is something
2 3
4 5
6 7
- 8.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1
24 Ace-Fed,
Reporters, Inc.
25 42 we can do at any time. So you would not shut the door on that.
But --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
By not putting it in here, my impression is that you have shut the door on it unless you take other action.
At least that is a reasonable, one reason~*
able reading of the order.
MR. MALLORY:
I think --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I think --
MR. MALLORY:
I.think the more reasonable reading is that you have not, but it would -- I think it allows an argument about it~
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Frequently one or another of us may find that explicit note in-a Commission statement of some possible future action _which is clearly within the Commission's power in any event, whether it is stated or not, is an element that for that Commissioner is a significant part of his willing ness to stand with the overall paper.
And here what I am saying is if the language here in paragraph three can stand approximately as is I am always giad to consider variations -- then I am willing to go around in order to get the Commission to a decision and use terminate up in paragraphs one and two.
Without it, I can't.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, the way I see the significance of this -- of paragraph six, is by putting it in
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
.O.ce-F Reporters, Inc.
25 43 or leaving it out you are to some extent lowering or increasing the threshhold that anyone who was proposing such an activity would have to cross.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In a sense I think that is true.
What you are doing i*s at least indicating that*.the Commission had contemplated that possibility when it closed down the GESMO proceeding and turned off the license proceedings in the individual cases and had made explicit note of the possibility.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But you know here, the only large-scale facility around is this facility.
It is a 1500 metric ton per*year facility.
And to say that we are terminating mixed oxide activities and so on of a commercial nature, but leaving open the possibility of running a 1500 metric ton per year facility COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That confusion may be at the heart of our difficulty here.
COMMISSIONE;R GILINSKY:
-- then, you --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you are limited to running it for experimental and feasibility purposes on a noncom-mercial basis.to investigate processes which support the na-tion's nonproliferation objectives COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, there are a lot of lawyers in this city CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is a lot of difference from just running a 1~00 ton a year reprocessing plant on a
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A.ce-F Reporters, Inc.
25 44 commercial basis.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There are a lot of lawyers in this city who get-paid for driving trucks.through words like that.
q)MMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Most of the, lawyers in this city who get paid for driving the-trucks through are the ones
-~
that I am concerned about raising the argument which Rich Mallory says could be argued.
You know, I think we ought to decide this and not leave things up to argument.
MR. MALLORY:
I think also it says COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Decide what we mean and then explicate that.
MR. MALLORY-:
- It* says that we are reserving it for decision.
And it is also up to the Commission to decide what it means.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, maybe I am sensing some-thing that isn't there.
I seem to sense in your attitude, Vic, :the feeling that *under no. circumstances, not ho.how, would you ever agree to Barnwell do any sort of work connected with reprocessing.
And maybe that is not rtght.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I don '*t think that the reprocessing plant ought to. be:.-*run during this interim period, this pause.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Even if --
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-Federol Reporters, Inc.
25 45 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, wait a minute; hang on; hang on.
I have got no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Now, wait; I might.
Even if during the MC somebody we would like to see as one of how this would run?
Let me just the actions in the* MC recall that many people have said, publicly -- I am not dream-ing this up; they have publicly said that they are concerned about the bona £ides with which we are proceeding in MC.
And much effort.has been put behind trying to con-vince them that in fact, MC is a real activity.
And I just believe that we have an obligation here not to make that task more difficult.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me poke a little further.
What you say is you dqn't need the paragraph because you could always do it.
And*_ indeed, it is the only one that is con-structed and sitting around, except Morris which you would not go and use.because the people already_decided they don't like the unit process arrangements for hot operation.
And that is indeed ~rue, but I seem to sense under-
- lying some of your objection to the language that even tho_ugh*:-
that you wouldn't consider that in any circumstances anyway.
I don't think I am expressing that well, but I am trying to ask whether that is COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I didn't understand the question.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
~ce-Fede Reporters, Inc.
25 46 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Suppose a year from today the Administration decides that it wants to run the reprocessing part of Barnwell on.an experimental basis to test some mat-erial balance accounting, on-line material, real time on-line material balance accounting.
And they say this is part of our trying to find better ways to control prolifera-tion.
We have decided some people are going to reprocess any-way and we would like to have this technology iri hand.
And there it is;**.a.reguest to the Congress for money to.do it, as part of the DOE proposition and so on.
Now, would that be an acceptable propos~tion, or can you tell this point whether you would just be dead against it no matter what?
COMMISSION~R GILINSKY:
We can think about it at that 'time.
But I think that -- you know, there.has been too much using the. language of. nonproliferation to achieve the:.
- opposite objective.and we see this in a lot of *areas.
And I think we ough~ to be careful about not en~
-gaging in it ourselves.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, it.runs both ways.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, that may be a fair comment,*but nevertheless~ I just think that putting in this paragraph gives things a nudge in the wro!lg direction.
Now, *it doesn't close the door.
It doesn't preclud
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1.8 19 20 21 22 23 i
24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 47 our examining_ any kind of proposals of an experimental nature.
It doesn't mean that you have closed your mind to any kinds of possibilities.
But I don't think there is any need to encourage reprocessing activities there at this time.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I see nothi~g in this state~
ment which would encourage anything.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, then,*why do you wa,nt it?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is precisely the same,as why don't you want it?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Because I --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you* are willing to make that statement why are you ~nwilling to see some form of it here quali"fied as you might like --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Because I think it would be a mistake for them to come back here with such a proposal.
These things have a way of sorting jacking each either up.
Now, I* think that if they did.,. we would have to
.consider it.
But I think, as I said, it.is a mistake, I think, and it would undermine our efforts to reach an agree-ment abroad to try to encourag.e reprocessing activities at Barnwell* at this point.* * -
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
When you say we could consider it, I sense I have to read beyond that and say:
Yes; the* way
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 48 we would consider a lot of things, but you would be against it?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I would have to con-sider it.
I have no idea what the proposal would be.
I just can't, you know, in the abstract, decide anything like*
that.
And also, a year from now COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It makes things a lot easier if you don't have to consider it.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Also, a year from now, as you point out, the conditions*. may have changed or they may hav not.
I just dop't see how you can prejudge things_like that.
But it is a matter of emphasis. It is a matter of style and you give one kind of impression or you give another kind of impression.
I don't know that legally there is a_great deal.
of difference,.. but it does, I think, shift the burden of proof a little bit toward those who would proceed with these kinds of activities.
So I think, as the Lawyers have pointed out here, it is not closing any doors~
MR. NELSON:
Mr. Chairman, there was a question about the President's. veto message.
We have it here and to understand it, you have*to back up into the bill~ Section 107(b) of the vetoed bill called for a study on a number of things about Barnwell.
Section C said -- I am sorry, D --
l 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-F Reporters, Inc.
25*
49 called for completion of that study within six months.
The Preside_nt, after talking about lots of other things, mentions Barnwell in one_ long sentence here.
It says:
"Fina-lly, it"--
That is the bill..
II would oppose a variety of specific and unnecessary technical restrictions on energy research and development programs establish one-house veto provisions relating to geothermal fac-ility loan.guarantees and impose a six-month re-quirement for recommendation on the purchase and/or operation of the Barnwell reprocessing facility."
It is not c.lear whether he is talking, objecting to the.six months saying_it shouldn't be six months, it should be more or should be less, or whether he is talking about the merits of making the-study.
I cannot tell from that veto statement.
But it does*
mention Barnwell, and that is the context in which it was
- metnioned.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay~
Let's see.
We remain in disagreement on paragraph six. Let's see if we can do better up the line.
Okay?
Five is okay?
Four and five are okay.
I think we agreed, unles*s somebody has some other way they would like
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fed Reporters, Inc.
25 50 to say the same thing.
How about three?
Peter?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I am sorry.
I was still CHAIRMAN"HENDRIE:
We just formed, I think, what may be a majority position.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What have we done?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We are now threatening you.
What about paragraph three?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is acceptable to me.
I -- we *had discussed previously whether or.not we.would seek any further communications from the Executive Branch in that context, but I don't know that it even needs to be mentioned here..
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would prefer that it not because it is hard to foresee the circumstances --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would certainly not want to mention that here without having counsel give me his eest judgment ~s to the relationship between this independent,
- agency and the executive branch.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, 'I think in this par-ticular decision, we have made it clear that we are affording substantial deference to those views.*
And --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No; no *.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But as Vic says, it is a matter
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 51 of style.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
-- be more careful; be more precise in our wording.
I think we are making it clear that as always this agency will take account of the views of the President.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Whatever:.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, let's see; if it is a new proceeding, presumably we could not start without public comment.
And I would -- it would seem to me it would not start without getting the views of the executive branch.
COMMISSIONER.KENNEDY:
One of the import_ant con-siderations between deferral and termination, I would note, and I think thE: record should make that clear, that that is one of the things that. y,ou visualize, as differentiating deferral from termination.
It simply would be a new proceed-ing.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
A new proceeding that would require public comment before y,ou would even initiate it.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Absolutely, and the com-ments of the President, I would say, too.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, again, depending on circumstances.
It is possible --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, unless his views have been made c"lear in some other way.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ace*F* Reporters, ~~-
25 52 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, or depending on whether you are reconstituting an earlier proceeding, or instituting an entire new one.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or instituting an entire new one.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, that's right.
That is precisely the difference.
CHAIRM..~N HENDRIE:
Well, let's see~
Do I have an agreement on three pretty well, up and down the table, then?
Okay.
We are making great progress.
We have got three, four and five out of. six.
It seems to me that the job is practically done.
(Laughter. )
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I have 11 more minutes in which to consider this, Mr. Chairman..
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I was going to say I have
- 17.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I have.got about 17 myself.
Now, with regard to one and two, --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY':'
You are saying this is language for the purpose of the present, but really doesn '* t dispose of the matter.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, let me ask:
I must say; if we could agree,.get some agreement,
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-F.
eporters, Inc.
25 or -- on six, or some modification of six, MR. NELSON:
What if you built into six some no-tion of the executive branch view?
You know, the question 53 is whether the. proposal, what. ever this may be, would support the nation's nonproliferation objectives; That certainly is a consi_deration upon which it is possible to give some respect to**the President's views.
If you could build that notion in there, it is almost a mother-hood statement.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
In this day and age.it is noted that a lot of people are against motherhood.
M~. NELSON: Well, I merely suggest it as something that would parallel with --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I*am not sure whether that would help or not.
MR. MALLORY:
I think one importance of six is that if we ask the Supreme Court to dismiss the Second Circunt case as moot, it is important, if we are considering leaving this thing open or that we consider that this decision leaves paragraph six open, that we be forthcoming with the Court and say:
We consider this a possibility, but we are limiting it, so that it doesn't cross the Second Circuitts opinion.
And it would be better to do that than to not say anything and then at some future time come along.
We could make it clear at that time that we thought that it didntt cros
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A.ce-F eporters, Inc.
25 54 the Second Circuit's opinion.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are considerations of size in any way rele*vant to six; that is, if it incorporated the concept of small quantities that is cranked into the President's letter.
Does*that help or hinder?
MR. MALLORY:
As I understand it.-..-- perhaps_ the Staf.f.*would comment further but one of the purposes of using Barnwell would be to see how a large-scale process tests out compared to a small-scale.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, then, at the point.at which it becomes a large..-scale process, then don't you start to have -- even if DOE did it and didn't require a license, don't they start to have NEPA problems?
MR.,.MALLORY:
I think it is a matter of whether it is being used on a commercial basis.
The Second Circuit de-cision.talked about using it on a commercial scale.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What about NEPA_generally?
Does it. somehow not apply if it were noncommercial?
MR. MALLORY:
We 11, no; that I s not true.
And perhaps a study like*'*that would require an impact statement.
But it would not necessarily require that GESMO be completed.
If it were done without something like GESMO, the idea would be that it would be done on a limited basis and that couldn~t be made permanent unless a GESMO study were done and came out affirmatively.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Reponers, Inc.
25 55 MR. RATHBUN: It might be a question of administrat-ive feasibility of getting it all done and wrapped up on a time basis.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are you saying that at the point at which you -undertake to operate it on a large enough scal~_to require an impact statement, you may well be talking about a two-year licensing process and --
MR. RATHBUN: It is the licensing lead time.
It is just a thought.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let' see.
Paragraph six, the thing raised over here about the Supreme. Court case.
Paragraph six thrust, probably more in terms of the sort of language that you have used at greater length in describing the possibility that something like that could take place, if we need to discuss it in the Supreme Court case, is that a problem?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
To say what, that this --
our statement doesn't preclude considering *other possibilities.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If that is the case, we believe that is right--- legally that is right~
MR. NELSON:
It doesn't preclude anything it does not preclude.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Right.
MR. NELSON:
Legally, I don't thin~ you need six.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-f Reporters, Inc.
25 What you have* got here is a policy qu,estion.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am just asking whether --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I want them to be frank with the Supreme Court.
(Laughter.)
56
.~**
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I find it difficult to fault that principle.
Okay.
So that -- a suitable discussion*: to: *make it quite clear to the Supreme Court, would not be a problem.
I don't know that that says anything here or there, but ap-pearing in the order~- now, let's see.
Let me see if I can line up three votes against you on this.
Okay?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Go ahead and try,;
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
Dick, -you w.ould like to six in.
COMMISSiiONER KENNEDY:
I insist.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That seems unambiguous to me.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Does an insistence count more than a vote.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Speaking in frankness, unambiguity is one of the things that you will note in my statements.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, Peter, what is your view on
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2.0 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 57 it?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me understand exactly what six would contemplate by way of any further proceeding.
Someone would come back for a license.
Someone would submit a new application.
MR. MALLORY:
Or perhaps a review without a license, in the character of -- if it were exempt.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What we are talking about here is the facility may be licensed.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think if DOE came and asked for, -y,ou know, just an informal rev+/-ew, that is not what we are talking about here; right?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, furthermore, pre-sumable DOE isn't going to do that without having cl'eared it with the President.
MR. NELSON:.- Right.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Now, suppose as part of the national policy, DOE wants -- makes a contract with the owners of the Barnwell facility for certain work that would fall under this kind of a category, experimental and feasibility on a noncorrnnercial basis, and says, then, to the owners of Barnwell; get yourself off to the NRC and get a license to do this experimental noncommercial £easibility work, and here they come.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, now, are you assuming
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 at that point, for DOE even to say that, obviously, there must have been some kind of executive branch determination that CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would think so.
CO.MM:ISSI0NER BRADFORD:
tha~ this is not --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
58 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It is hard.for me to con-template.
COMMISSION BRADFORD:
Does DOE have to be involved in any action that anyone might take to come under section six?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
How would we ascertain that it was consistent with the actual policy.
MR. PEDERSEN:
It would seem to me it would have to be in pursuit of some pretty expressed Congressional and/or Administrative statement or mandate.
Otherwise, it would support the nation's -7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
In fact, if it noncommercial it is at all likely that the present applicant would come forward to operate it on a noncommercial --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I suppose it would be possible in principle for the Barnwell people, maybe a. group of utili-23
- ties to get together and say:
Let's get together and on a 24 Ace-Fe Reporters, Inc.
25 private basis do some research.and show that we can really safeguard these plants, or here is a different way to work the
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ace-F. Reporters, 24 Inc.
25 processing line, or something like that, and come to us.
It seems to me rather unlikely, and I wouldn't object to ruling that out.
59 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You don't contemplate under six, then, anything* that doesn't --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
A use of the plant which is not consonant with the Administration's policy.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The Administration has a policy on what they will do with the reprocessing du~ing the MC and it precludes these reprocessing activities.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The Administration's policy on MC is that every conceivable optional fuel cycle will be examined.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The same Administration is lett~ng Takai Mora go ahead for two years under a set of conditions and so on.
And the restraint from reprocessing is on a commercial bas.is and not an experimental one.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I mean, they were not very happy about letting Takai Mora go forward.
The Japanese got very sticky on this point and they decided --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Since this could so ob-viously be an interminable discussion, can we reschedule for some other time?
I must leave.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am prepared to sit and listen to it forever, except that I cannot.
Let's see.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 60 MR. NELSON:
We have an obligation to the Supreme Court.
That is December 23rd.
CI-Aifil'iAN HENDRIE:
Let's see the Commission's schedule, and let me ask you to think about your own schedules.
(Pause.)*
I have got a 3:30 appointment that I have to keep, but that still allows two hours, and it wouldn't be -- you know, I could always pass the gavel and sprint if it weren't over by that time.
Is this afternoon -- are you locked up?
We have the AIF people in at 1:30.
If I can whack them down by 2:30, do you suppose we could go on, then, for an hour?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
2:30 to 3:30?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It is okay with me.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Why don't we break, then, and do that.
MR. PEDERSEN:
Mr. Chairman, I wonder; could I just give a short piece of language that you could mull over -
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would much rather have you write it down and circulate it.
MR. PEDERSEN:
Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Wait a minute.
Before you go away, I think I have to ask for a vote of short notice vote.
2 3
4 5
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1Ace-F Reponers, Inc.
25 MR. NELSON:
No, you don't
- You are continuing a meeting.
You started a meeting that is going to resume again this afternoon.* Go ahead and vote if you want but you don't have to.
(Laughter.)
61 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It may be the only ~hing on which we can agree.
Why don't we vote?
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If I took the vote, could I bank it and use.. it for anything I want?
(Laughter.)
. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We will start again at 2:30.
(Whereupon, the hearing in the above-entitled matter recessed, to reconvene at *2:30 p.m., the same day.)
l 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
- 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 62 AFTERNOON SESSION (2:45 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me just announce to the waiting world that we resume here with the meeting recessed from this morning on what to do with the GESMO proceeding, in the event there was doubt in anybody's mind who th~ught he was at the National Theatre for a matinee.
(Laughter.)
And Peter had some COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
This wouldn't sell any tickets to anybody.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay; shoot, Peter, and then I have got a proposition.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have just been trying_
to clarify in my mind just what might happen under i tern, six.
And I guess L:have gotten to the point where I understand if it were a commercial venture of any sort, then clearly the Second Circuit decision would require a GESMO type pro-ceeding before we could license it.
MR. MALLORY:
Yes; that is what the decision says.
.COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But I think we ought to be careful in the language.
The enterprise would be a commercial
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 63 enterprise.
The question would be what its output would be used in.
Isn't that correct?
We need to* clarify that.
MR. MALLORY:
The decision talks about allowing reprocessing and then someone on a commercial scale;says that that is not good.
That is not allowed.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What does that mean?
MR. MALLORY:
It doesn't say very much about what it means, except that it discusses -- well, the decision does not go into detail.
It says commercial scale is not allowed.
But on the other hand, it is reprocessing and so on for experimental and feasibility purposes is allowed.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
So would it be reasonable, then, to interpret -- and I am just -- Peter, if you don't mind; I am just trying,*to clarify your own point.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No; that's fine.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I am just trying to be sure I understand.
Would it be fair to say, then, that although this is a -- we are talking here about. the Barnwell case in par-ticular that is a commercial plant.
And its. operation for experimental purposes would be the operation of a commer-cial plant.
That's what it is.. That would still be not a com mercial operation; is that right?
MR. MALLORY :
Yes.
I think that, as I understand it, we would -- it would have to be operated on a fairly large
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fe Reporters, Inc.
25 64 scale in order to be -- to get:-
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Would it make any difference if it were operated *on a large scale, if the product of the facility went no where, except into storage.
And I think that is the questio*n.
I don't know whether that is right or not.
But I would have thought it would not be commercial operation unless its product went into the marketplace somehow into a so-called plutonium economy, or was actually being put into mixed oxide fuel?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You mean so long as they are losing money, it is not commercial?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No,: I "didn '*.t say that.
That, too COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That, too.
Necessary, but not --
COMMISSIONE_R KENNEDY:
That would be a problem in any event.
I have read many studies -- or statements, I would say; not studies. -- that it was so economically infeasible tha they would all lose money.
So I think that:': s the criteria.
MR. MALLORY:
I think it is very difficult to say definitively that that one thing would be allowed and another would not.
It would seem to me that if you operated it and did not put the plutonium into the economy and did not operate
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 it over such a prolonged period, that it became sort of a continuing operation, that that would be noncommercial.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, let's see; since they can't 65 MR. MALL.ORY:
The opinion, the court's opinion is not ~ery clear on just what the dividing line is. It says that what it looks _like the November '75 decision would allow the Commission to.do, is not allowed.
And that is about as fine as it gets.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, letts pursue that for.
a moment.
You are saying so long as it doesn't enter this "plutonium economy," it wouldn't be commercial
- The fact is that since they dontt have a plutonium oxide or conversion for nitrate oxide, there is no way for that stuff to go into reactors.
And all they can do is put it in storage.
And what you are saying is that if they go ahead or are allowed to run their plutonium separation plants, the reprocessing plants, that would not constitute a conrrnercial operation.
MR. MALLORY:
No; that is not what I am saying.
It has to be --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Furthermore, it certainly -- it certainly doesn't mean -- that** certainly doesn't mean what I would mean by experimental and --
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 66 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I know that
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: -- feasibility purposes.
Okay.
MR. MALLORY:
Well, perhaps the best thing to do with this is to say:
For experimental and feasibility pur-poses and to remove* the phrase, "on a noncommercial basis,"
becau,.se th~ opinion says that it would not be allowed on a.
- commercial scale.*
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I mean, don't they mean small-scale, experimental feasibility experiments?*
MR. MALLORY:
The judges decided the case.
The case was:-
Is the November '75 policy allowed under NEPA?
The answer was no.
But they did not decide; if they do other things are they allowed, and the opinion is vague on that.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, if -- if I understood what you were saying here, what you had in mind by noncom-mercial was-~ at least what you were willing to accept for noncommercial -- was something that was not. in private hands; that --
.* CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Something which would be specifically supported by and the subject of an Administration program in the area.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But that does not suggest that it would not be in private hands.
After all, most of the facilities that are being
. operated in national labora-tories today are in private hands.
They are operated
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
.18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 67 privately, by contract.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I.assume if the plant were still in who is it, Allied General hands, that they would be the operating contractors, but it would be DOE COMMISSibNER GILINSKY:
But you are talking about a reP;_rocessing mode as opposed to CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
-~some people checking physical security or something like that?
CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE:
I think the bench scale physical security sort of check and assorted other enterprises of that kind are also an important part of it, but I would just as soon not be restrained from some reprocessing runs of an ex-perimental nature, to do things like check out material bal-ancing instrumentation and --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But there is.not reason to think that the Administration is about to propose anything like that.--
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, I dontt think --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In the near --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
-- future.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yesi I think that's right.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And if they did, there is nothing to preclude us from taking it up.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F Reporters, Inc.
25 68 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
True.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So what do we need all this for?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There is another question, and I would like to- --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Because I would like to take note,.of. it so that it is riot -- so that it doesn't become, if that possibility should arise and people want us to go, it doesn't become a great struggle to explain that the Commission in fact had such possibilities ih mind at this time when we wrote this order, and not have to deal with arguments that:
Well; these proposals for possible uses of Barnwel* *and in fact had been proposed by the Congress, and if the Commission at the time of its order had any thought that it would ever be allowed, they would have said something.
Now, you know, as we said,.it is.just the a reverse of the argument which you make, that*~ou see no need to make the comment at all, because*you feel it. gives the wrong sort of signal in the order.
So my feeling is sort of just the reverse of that, that the absence of the paragraph or somethihg,roughly equiv-alent also gives the wrong kind of signal.
Peter, you had some more to.go?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think not, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Some language?
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
~ce-F eponers, Inc.
25 69 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No -- well, I had played around with whether there was anything to be said for taking out either the phras*e, "any facility such as," or taking out "such as the Barnwell facility," because it looked as though it was just redundant, but I didn't really much to be gained either way on that.
We probably do want an °0£ 11 in between "question" and "whether."
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think that is fairly noncon-troversial.. I will so order.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I wouldn't accept that with-out trading £or something *
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We are creating_ good will.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You will find that gets you almost anywhere, except somewhere. at this table&
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The only-people that were ever volunteering that they had language that {hey thought might get anywhere, were the OGE.;;
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If it would be any help, I can do without the "such as the Barnwell facility," but I don'-t know that that gets there.
Right?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Right.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I wouldn't think so, because the
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-F eporters, Inc.
25 70
- point is still with us.
Okay.
Now, let me --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It would be dangerous to do that, because then it would make the thing even more ambiguous than j. t. already is vis-a-vis the last paragraph where Barnwell is specifically mentioned.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Well, let's let para-graph six for:*:.the moment stand in draft as it is with the addition of Peter's -- do you.have another one?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It is just again, there are we are told, three Barnwell facilities or something. I take i.
it:'is one particular docketnumber that we have in mind there.
CHAIRMAN _HENDRIE:
Yes.
MR. MALLORY:
- There are five listed*' in the paper that NMSS prepared.
COMMISS.[,ONER BRADFORD:
Wouldn't it be sensible to put in parentheses after that one the one that you actually mean?
Or do you mean all of them.
MR. MALLORY:
Well, I would suspect it would be the separations facility that would be used.
The CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know.
There might be_.
whether you would find some reason to use the front end, the receiving pool end, I don't know.
"Such as one of the Barnwell facilities?t.l
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-Fe Reporters, Inc:.
25
- 71.
MR. MALLORY:
I think that kind of decision as to what would be used and whether a particular proposal would fit within paragraph six has to wait until there is a particu-lar proposal.
CHAIRMAN_ HENDRIE:
I would prefer actually not to use a docket number here, because,>I feel it does get too ex-plicit, and then it becomes -- then I even begin to have some of Vic's problems.
Then it begins to sound like too explicit an invitation.
Okay.
For the draft paragraph six, with the "of
in it.
Now ~ay I turn briefly -- I hope to another subject which is on page two, and that has to do.-- in para-graph two; I would like to strike in the draft the words, "processing of and," in the first sentence of item number two.
And the reason is that-the. Staff. has suggested _that they would like very much in order to preserve the technical safety re-view work invested in the business, to complete the 10 percent, I guess is the estimate, of work to wrap up the... Barnwel1 storage thing.
And if we were to agree that that would be area-sonable thing for them to do, the order could not very well include the word "processing."
Now, if we -- if my colleagues will agree with this strike, the Staff should please understand that we do not want
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fede a Reporters, Inc.
25 72 Staff review work to go on, on other ones of these dockets, to continue them, unless *the Staff finds good and appropriate reasons and comes back and asks the Commission.
Understood?
Now, with regard to the 10 percent, could we go ahead.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, if it is a matter of wrapping things up in order to preserve them in a more satis-factory manner, I think that's okay.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
MR.. MALLORY:
Now, the language was in there becaus of the language in the President's letter, which asked for termination of Staff reviews and hearings.relating to recycle facilities.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:.
I know what is in the President's letter.
Thank you very much.
Please strike on your drafts-~ or let me ask you if I may; consider the draft as having the words nproce_ssing and of," struck.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But in effect, we are terminating Staff reviews with the exception of this --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
With this single exception.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
-- of basically just tidying up the application.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
l 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fede a Reporters, Inc.
25
- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's correct.
And if they have any reason to think there are others*things they ought 73 to do, they are directed to come back to *the Commission before they undertake* them.*
Okay?
In that* case, let us :regard the draft as having the words "processing of and 11 struck.
Now, it seems fairly clear to me where everybody stands.
And it is quite clear that nobody is going to be very happy with what *.ever order the Commission..:._ fully happy --
with any order that the Commission would be able to publish.
I would like to make the following proposal to you in full recognition that it will create lack of satisfac-tion all up and down the_ table.
My hope is that nevertheless that we could agree tQ it.
And*I would, like to lay it all.out as a piece ra-ther than sort of going along a chunk at a time and building a set of bricks up without the shape of the house being appar-ent.
I propose that the draft order in items one and two start rather than "not to continu~, 11 say, 11to terminate the GESMO proceeding, 11 in one, and in two, "*to terminate th.e proceedings on pending the future," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
~ce-Federo Reporters, Inc.
25 74 That the draft then continue as written down by OGE to include paragraphs three, four, five as they stand, and paragraph six, with j_ust the "of" adqed between "question" and "whether," and then continue to the bottom.
I recognize that the words "to terminate" in items*
one and two are words with which Commissioner Kennedy cannot agree.
And I would expect the ord<=r to note his disagreement with that language* and what ever additional comments he might feel it appropriate to make; either in connection with this document, or in a fuller decision from the Commission.
I recognize that Commissioner Gilinsky objects to the presence of paragraph six, and I would expect the order to note his disagreement with the appearance of that paragraph in the order, and again, s_eparate comments as you feel appropriate We might _for the order purposes and from the stand-point of getting on and getting the order published, simply note the dissents on :these separate elements of the order, and then a fuller statement of your individual views wait for the longer.discussion of the decision which*the General Coun-sel's Office is preparing for us.
I think, since I am proposing it, I guess I ouqht not to dissent from any part of it.
And Commissioner Bradford, I am sure, would phrase it slightly differently if he were writing, but I don '*t know whether you 'feel*it necessary to make any separate remarks.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fede Reporters, Inc.
25 75 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
I think with the understanding that I think we have, that we would want some explicit showing of ~he nation's nonproliferation objectives on any proposal that came in under Section six.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Could I inquire about some--
thimg here?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
COMMIS.SIONER KENNEDY:
For the record, will we then feel free to reject such a showing, or such a conclusion of the executive branch in this regard, as we do reserve to ourselves, in the.case of export licenses?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You mean with regard to~-
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The specific showing of the relationship with the nation's nonproliferation objectives.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You mean if for instance, Allied comes in and says:
Look; DOE wants us to do some experimental ano. feas_ible COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And the exec11tive branch confirms:
Yes, indeed, we think this is right thing to do.
Are we then bound by this?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you think we ought to be?
COMMISSIONER.KENNEDY: I just want the record to be clear as to how we view this, because right now we are ask-ing the_executive branch with respect to export licenses, and
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace*Fcd Reporters, Inc.
25 then spending a great deal of time arguing about whether we should -- to what extent we should accept their views.
And I think it is material that we know now how we are going to treat this.
76 At least. the record should be clear as to how the members of the Commission feel in this regard.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me say, then, from the Chair, that I regard the Commission's responsibility as one to form its opinion here, as in the other cases, on the merits at the time that it arises.
And.~ would say the Commission would not be bound by that recommendation automatically.
I think it would be given very considerable weight.
I personally would give it considerable weight, b~t I would not consider it an iron clad binding.
And I think it appropriate that other people add their understanding.
COMMISSICN"ER KENNEDY: Let me just say in this re-gard; that is my precisely -- coincides with me view of the way we treat export licenses.
I would. underline that we should be giving considerable weight to matters in this regard.
And I think that we should be consistent.
(Pause.)
Unless you have some sort of disagreement with the sort of thrust I have suggested --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, I have no difficulty.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12
- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fe Reporters, Inc.
25 77 I am not sure I quite understood the question.
I think as far as the finding on health and safety obviously, we would be free to make our own determination.
If you meant whether if DOE indicated something that was in support of the Administration's nonproliferation objectives, we would think that if DOE at least then thought so, I would feel COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No; no, that was not the thrust of the question.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, the record is established here that COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Oh, no; not quite.
You know, others have not* spoken yet*.
And I think it would be well to have an expression of views.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do_you have any great disagree-ment?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
With what?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, with the sort of proposi-tion that I suggest?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, you know --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We -could wait and make our own minds up.
COMMISSIONER-G1LINSKY:
Oh, as far as what we do with executive branch views?
I think that is exactly right; yes.
You know, the question in this case is whether you agree
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ace-i-. Reporters, ~~-
25 78 with the President or not.
I happen to agree with him on this one.
And therefore, I am inclined to follow his course.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And indeed --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And I am not compelled to.
COMMISSI.ONER KENNEDY:
And indeed, so are we all.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY::
Well,,I think you seem to be coming to different conclusions about it all.
But, you know --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, all I know is what I read in the President's statement, which sometimes'differ from those of various aides of the President, or those who purport to be.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Different perceptions.
Let me call us back to the draft paper, lest I get trapped having to go to my appointment and turning the gavel over to a collapsing quorum.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You need not worry, because as I indicated, when you leave for your appointment, I, too, have one to which I will be rep~iring.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You won't have to worry abou that problem.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Back to my proposition.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
What makes your proposition acceptable to me is
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
79 that --
I think I share Victor's point that I agree with the President on this one.
The reason that I guess I come out slightly dif-ferent is that I think,on balance, a package that clearly says terminate and then includes this item six is better than one that is split two to two between terminate and defer. *- It just seems to me the signals are less confusing than they would be from the other.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And as I remarked to Peter befor 10
__ the meeting started, if we went_-_ over to defer, I will delete 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Feoe a Reporters, Inc.
25 paragraphs three_ and six, but I doubt that -~.we never tried that.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
No.
We never spent two hour discussi~g that, and I _suggest that might be worthwhile.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I thought about it, and had my doubts that we will get where we want to go that way.
Look --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I am not sure we_get where we want to go in any event.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well,the proposition as I frame it, is a complex one, and what I am asking people to do in effect is to join me_in voting for this course action, includin the recognition of the strong disagreements and dissenting views by Commissioners' Kennedy and Gilinsky, on the differ-ent pieces of the order as I have outlined.
It appears to me,
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-Fe Reporters, Inc.
25 80 must say, as the only --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, I would be, you know -
CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE:
opportunity to COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:: -- another minor suggested change and I would even withdraw any dissent as to the word terminate, if at the end of paragraph three we simply said, where the semicolon now is, what I understand the paragraph to mean, which is, "and decide at that time,!' whether and under what conditions to reopen the GESMO proceeding.
Drop the word "GESMO."
COMM,ISSIONER BRADFORD:. As far a~ I am concerned, I think you would also have to do something other than -- have a word other than "reopen."
(Pause.)
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I mean, what is at issue is whether we are going to give the impression that the U.S.
government is really not serious in the. use of this technology, while it is trying convince others COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Oh, Commissioner., I don't a9ree that that is what is at issue at all. It is not what is at issue on my score.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, trying to convince.
COMMISSIONER-KENNEDY:
There is no question in my mind that the U.S. government is sincere, and indeed, there is no question in my mind whatever.
It seems to be in others, I
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 sl gather.
There is no question in my mind on that score that this Commission fully supports the U.S. government efforts in this regard.
I never raised a question on that score; never.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, at any rate, others have raised these gues*tions abroad.. And what one is doing is giving them something to hang these suspi.cions on.
And I think it is a great mistake.
©MMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don't think it gives them cause to hang*anything on, 6n these matters. There is nothing here to hang suspicions oh; nothing at all.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Look, gentlemen, the points of view are strongly held.
And I think I understand them.
Let me see if I can't bring you back to the proposition
- Commission~r Bradford, I think, will agree with me that it is an acceptable one.
Commissioner Kennedy?.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:. I don 1 t consider it accept-able, but I will, you know, what alternative do I have, and the answer is none.
(Pause.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well---:-
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Unless I abstain.,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we are to have --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Of course, one might ask what happens if I abstain.
I.
1*
l 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13
- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F ol Reporters, Inc.
25 82 I don't know.
We will have to see what the vote turns out to be.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Look, I have suggested that we -
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
So long as we don't have a computer voting machine, it is hard thing to do.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Take it a piece at a time.
CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE:
Well, I think that would cert-ainly be a way to do it~
Let me --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I* am prepared to accept it as your proposition suggests.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think that paragraph six ought not to be there, and as long_ as that is made clear.--
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think that is a very c lear and certain part of this COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You are expecting that we will state our opinions; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN. HENDRIE:
I would --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Otherwise, that record is not clear.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I certainly expect the addi-tional comments of yourself and Commissioner Gilinsky, to appear.
I would hope that you would feel it reasonable to attach them to the. discu*ssion of the order, which OGC will be preparing rather than hold this order for those comments.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Only if this order notes --
J
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 83 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It surely shall.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
-- that there shall be such; okay?
CHAIRM.~N HENDRIE:
Yes, yes;. okay?
MR. MALLORY:
You could add a footnote that says that views will be expressed on the paragraphs.that you have problems with.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Can't there be an explicit paragraph down here about the time you say the Corn.mission will shortly publish a*. statement of the reasons underlying this decision;before that there ought.to be a paragraph or two paragraphs whi*ch state that Corn.missioner Kennedy dissents from and disagrees*with the use of the word "terminate," in one and two and please check with him.
And a similar sentence for Corn.missioner Gilinsky on paragraph six; okay?
And where it says the Commission will publish a statement of the reasons underlying the decision, why either there -- sort of notes of the dissents, it ought to take note that there will be the additional comments of the individuals concerned, in association with that statement of the reasons.
If that is understood, could I -have your, if not cheerful, at least unwillling and grudging concurrence in this matter?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Acquiescence is more appropriate.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 (Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right; acquiescence.
Gentlemen, so ordered.
The hearing is adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was adjourned.)
84