ML22230A070
| ML22230A070 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/16/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780216 | |
| Download: ML22230A070 (12) | |
Text
. _ N TO SECRETARIAT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
ADJUDICATORY SESSION 78-8 DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION REVIEW OF MIDLAND AND AFFIRMATION ITEM Place - Washington, D. C.
Date -
Thursday, 16 February 1978 Pages 1 -
9 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, L."'\\fC.
Official Reporten 44A North Capitol Street Woshington, D.C. 20001 NATlONWI0E COVERAGE* DAILY Telephone:
(202) 3A7-3700
i I.
rt t
(
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a m~eting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission he1d on February* 16, 1978 in :the Corrrnission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. t,J., Hashington> D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This* transcript ha3 not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As pro_vided 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 e.ny proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or arg!..1ment contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
I \\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN,, THE M'ATTER OF:
ADJUDICATORY SESSION 78~8 DIS~USSION OF COMMISSION REVIEW OF MIDLAND AND A:FFIRMATION ITEM Place - Washington, D. c.
Date -
Thursday, 16 February 1978 Pages 1 -
9 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Offici,aJ. Reponen *
- 4.44 North Capitol St~t Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE:. DAILY Tel~hone:
(202) 3.47-3700
CR 6425 dav 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADJUDICATORY SESSION 78-8 DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION REVIEW OF MIDLAND AND AFFIRMATION ITEM Room 1130 1717 H. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Thursday, February 16, 1978 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 11:50 a.m.
17 BEFORE:
18 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 19 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 20 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 21 RICHARDT. KENNEDY, Commissioner 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 1
CR 6425 HOFF t.-
7 dkw 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 minutes.
PR O.:C EE DINGS CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, let's get underway.
Jim, you said you could do it in less than 15 I bet you you can't.
MR. KELLEY:
The proposition that is.before the house is whether or not we should extend the Commission review 2
until after.the remand hearing in the Midland case to determine the imposition of antitrust conditions, the remedial phase of the hearing.
We did call for views from the parties; we did get views back now from the Staff and the Justice Department and the intervening municipalities, and the applicant, Consumer's Power.
Everybody but the applicant favors deferring Commission review.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:. What was his reason for not?
MR. KELLEY:
There were essentially two reasons:
one was the contention that a lab for 52 was wrong in serious respects, and that it was misleading for theindustry and would affect industry planning, and that the Commission should step in and correct the industry errors so the industry could know what the rules of the game are.
A second contention was that, on the assumption that they could.come up here and win hands down, the quickest way was for the Commission to step in now.
You could make all sorts of assumptions trying to
dkw 2 1
2 3
4 s
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 figure delay and speed going down that road.
If you come in now, there still has to be a remand that would take longer.
So one could argue that back and forth.
I think that the contractor is an important consideration in assessin~ that claim.
It's very true that the Appeal Board has now spoken on a lot of substantive*antitrust issue, end the Commission hasn't.
And there's going to be a period of time, if you don't review now, during which that will be the law, and possibly the Commission will change its place.
3 The Consumer Commission says this could delay commission resolution_.byyears.
I don't think that's accurate.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would hope not.
MR. KELLEY:
I did talk with the Chairman of the 14 15 Remand Board, Marshall Miller, who I think is a very able man.
And I asked him, what do you think, Marshall, in terms of time.
16 And he said he thought he could hold this hearing and be 17 through this phase of _it, certainly, in less than 6 months1 18 maybe more like 4.
19 I. would say realistically, if you defer, it will 20 come back up here in about a year.
But given the time frames 21 22 23 24 we're operating in, I don't think that's bad.
And I think the downside of going in other directions could be longer.
In favor of extending shorten this as much as you wish and I can extend or but I do think that as the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Staff pointed out there's going to be some wasted.effort.
If
I
.dtw 3 2
3 4
you take it now, you'd have to take it again later, because you can't look at these things as abstract, theoretical propositions.
You're going to have to get into the record to some extent, and that means some trips into a big record, s
which I think would be undesirable.
6 It does seem to me that the place for Commission 4
7 policy judgment is going *to be primarily at the remedial stage.
a The antitrust laws require whatever they require; appeal 9
boards have a lot to say on that, but that is sort of an 10 abstract, intellectual exercise.
11 It's quite another matter, it seems to me, to. figure 12 out, well, what's your final liability in antitrust, and what 13 14 15 are you going to do about it? Are you going to make them sell a piece of the plant?
Are you perhaps. going to ask all sorts of things?
You're going to have a lot of discretion in 16 that area.
17 That's where it seems to me that policy guidance 18 is going to come. in very strongly, and much less so at this 19 stage, in the posture of this case.
20 There was a concern, expressed by Commissioner 21 Bradford but I think shared by all of you, about impact on 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
other cases.
The Staff has come back and said that they think that deferring will no~ significantly impact other cases.
There are not an awful lot of other cases.
I was rather surprised at the shortness of the list; like six pending cases 25
dkw 4 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 5
now, and a couple of them before the appeal board.
So we don't want to have a situation where we've got 20 ongoing hearings, and a concern that there may be something seriously wrong with 452, and therefore they're marching down the wrong road.
There are relatively few hearings on going, and we havethe Staff's judgment that deferral would not have significant impact in those terms.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So your recommendation is that in order -- let's see, this is order on a motion by applicant.
MR. KELLEY:
No, the applicant came in -- I want to make two additions. is a proposed order.
The applicant came in and said, "Review it now, but we want more time and more pages*~~ two more pages on our petition to explain what's wrong with 452."
That's a motion before the house.
You would be extending your time for review on your own motion.
You're simply taking a look at this and saying, not now but later.
That's what this order would do.
.I would like to make a couple of additions to this.
This order says we're going to extend the time to consider petitions for review.
I'm sure they'll be forthcoming.
I think you should al so extend the time.: for review on your own motion.
So I would like to put*in some words that would do that.
I would like to add a sentence which says
i I
dkw 5 approximately this at the very end: "Consumer Power Company's 2
motion of January 4, to extend the time for filing petitions l5 3
for review, and to enlarge the PACE limitations on such review, 4
is denied without prejudice to its right to.renew such a I
5 motion following appeal board review at the remand proceedings. i*
6 In other words, I can come back next year and make 7
the same request, and it would be entertained.
But that 8
motion is before the house; I think it should be acted upon.
9 I think that's the way to do it.
10 1 l 12 13 decision.
14 15 16 17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm voting.
(Laughter.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I perceive a sudden hunger for Those in favor of Counsel's proposal?
(Show of hands.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So ordered.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would like to talk on the 18 matter we were discussing informally earlier.
19 I do think it would be good to reexamine the question 20 that was put before the Commission in 1973 to take a look.at 21 what the Commission's general policy posture is.
22 ANd I think it would be useful to get it updated to 23 the extent it's appropriate, and put it before us.
And if at 24 that point we conclude that we were comfortable where we Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 are for thetime being, fine.
But I think we ought to at least
dkw 6 think about that in today's climate, and looking ahead to 2
tomorrow's world.
3 MR. KELLEY:
We can simply do that in our office, 4
if.it's not too much trouble, Jerry, and we can work out some 5
sort of allocation of it, as to who does what.
6 But I would think all three offices could have some 7
input*to discussing thesituation with the Commission and the 8
apparent alternatives.
9 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We'd appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It may be.-you*11*
- conclude that 11 this is not the right time to go forward with such a thrust, 12 but maybe it would be good to know that we think that.
13 MR. KELLEY:
I take it your askin~ for what I could 14 call sort of a preliminary assessment, and not an exhaustive 15 study of the matter?
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I guess that's right.
I 17 would 'iike to feel comfortable with whether we're letting the 7
18 statutes be written by the courts.
I'm not sure that's the way 19 all the best law is made.
20 21 of that.
22 23 MR. KELLEY:
We' 11 certainly give you o_ur assessment CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Please do.
MR. KELLEY:
I'll recirculate this order with the 24 changes I mentioned.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, of course.
dkw 7 2
- 3.
4 5
6 7
8 9
MR. KELLEY:
But I think we can get it out today.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And similar to the previous one?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would like --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That order be circulated too.
COMMISSIONER.KENNEDY:
I would like to suggest that on this one that we vote now, and we don't have to get it back.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's exactly right.
8 MR. KELLEY:
I*.told you the points I wanted to make, 10 nd I thought there was agreement.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We have an affirmative vote.
There's no need to vote again.
MR. KELLEY:
You mean the prior order?
I'm not quite clear.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, no, no; the prior matter that we just talked about.
MR. KELLEY:
Oh, oh, oh, the ALARA thing.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We had a vote and settled it.
But you know, as *always, the language should circulate so that people can see the things they thought would be in it are indeed in it.
MR. KELLEY:
I gathered from sitting here that Bob Minogue would have the lead on doing that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, it'll be some place.
dkw 8 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 9
Okay, Sam.
Will you conduct us in an affirmation item?
MR. CHILK:
The subject is SECY-78-33, complia:r:ice with SEC l(d) of NRC Authorization Act for FY '78, advanced reactor safety contracts.
The law requires you to consider the recom-mendations made by ACRS regarding the proposed research.
ACRS has written that they indicate the scope and direction of this program are approp~iate.
If there's a need for it, the general counsel has recommended that you indicate your concurrence with this, and place it on record by issuing a memorandum to the staff, which was attached to the paper.
All of you voted for it. Commissioner Gilinsky made a comment indicating he would like the staff reaction to 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the recommendation, but that's not a bar; that doesn't change his approval of the paper.
I'd like to ask you to affirm.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Those in favor, please raise their hands.
(Show of hands.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So ordered.
Thank you very much.
(Whereupon, at 12:00 noon, the hearing in the above-entitled matters was adjourned.)
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25