ML22230A109

Tran-M790927: Public Meeting Briefing on SECY-79-473 - CEQ-NEPA Regulations

ML22230A109
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/27/1979
From:	NRC/OCM
To:
References
Tran-M790927
Download: ML22230A109 (63)

Text

@"URN TO SECRETARIAT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER Of:

PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON SECY-79-473 - CEQ-NEPA REGULATIONS Place - Washington, D. C.

Date - Thursday 1 2 7 September 19 79 Pages 1-61 Telephone :

(202) 347-3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

Official Reporten 444. North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NAT10NWIDE COVERAGE

• DAILY

1 DIS CLAir-1ER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Corrrrniss ion held on Thursday, 27 September 1979 in t....1-ie Corrrrnissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. The meeting was open to public attendance 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 Connnission in any proceeding*as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Corrrrnission may authorize.

2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ce368 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 PUBLIC MEETING 4 BRIEFING ON SECY-79-473 - CEQ-NEPA REGULATIONS 5

Room 1130 6 1717 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C.

7 Thursday, 27 September 1979 8

The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 11:10 a.m.

9 PRESENT:

10 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner (presiding) 11 RICHARDT. KENNEDY, Commissioner 12 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 13 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 14 ALSO PRESENT:

15 Messrs. Malsch, Bickwit, Kenneke, Cunningham, Hoyle, and 16 Gossi ck.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25

3

.368 l P R O C E E D I N G S r TZER/rnml 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The subject before us 3 deals with CEQ NEPA regulations, Proposed Revision of 10 CFR 4 Part 21, and Related Conforming Amendments, having to do with -7' I

5 well, why don't you tell us, Mr. Cunningham. I i

6 I

MR. CUNNINGHAM: No, thank you.

7 MR. BICKWIT: This was a matter that was prepared 8 by OELD, by the Deputy General Counsel when he was a member 9 of OELD.

10 MR. CUNNINGHAM: He has graciously agreed to make I'

the presentation this morning.

1.,

,L MR. BICKWIT: That was a condition of his corning 13 over.

14 MR. MALSCH: I had to agree to present the paper.

15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me mention also, I 16 understand a letter has just come in from CEQ addressed to 17 Mr. Shapar, which deals with the subject under discussion, 18 and you may want to comment on that.

19 I don't know whether vou have had a chance to look 20 at it. I have, and I can give some comments on it.

21 We also have some extra copies.around tha:we can 22 distribute, in* case people haven't gotten copies.

n COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Good.

24 You can tell us how that affects our discussion here Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 MR. MALSCH: Okay. Let me begin by giving some

4 rnm2 background.

2 In May '77, the President issued Executive Order 3 11991, ..which directed.the Council on Environmental Quality 4 to issue regulations to federal agencies to implement all 5 the procedural revisions of the National Environmental Policy 6 Act, usually referred to as NEPA.

7 In the same order, the President also directed all 8 federal agencies to comply with regulations issued by CEQ, 9 except where such compliance would be inconsistent with 10 statutory requirements.

I I The CEQ published proposed regulations in June of I

121 '78. It received numerous comments on the draft regulations, 13 including some * ,from* ,the NRC.

14 And then the CEP published final regulations in 15 November of '78. Those regulations become effective on July 16 30, '79.

17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Will you at some point then, 18 refresh our memories as tothe relevance of the final rule as 19 it reflects or does not reflect NRC comments?

20 MR. MALSCH: Okay.

21 The regulations by CEQ said that the current 22 guidelines would remain in effect until that date, July 30, 1

23 79.

- 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 Following publication in November, the NEPA regulations were studied closely by the NRC staff, and in May

5

- rnm3 of this year, the Staff submitted a paper to the Commission, 2 SECY 79-305, which informed the Commission of its analysis of 3 the CEQ's final NEPA regulations and asked for guidance from 4 the Commission as ta..,how it should approach the matter of 5 implementation.

6 The Commission met on the paper, and in response 7 the Commission prepared a letter to the Chairman of CEQ, which 8 was sent on May 31st, '79. And that letter expressed a view 9 that a soundaceommodation could be reached between NRC's 10

, l independent responsibilities and CEQ's objectives of establishi l I I uniform interprocedures, and the letter stated that the 12 I CommissionvDuld develop regulations to take account of the CEQ 13 regulations voluntarily, subject to certain stated reservations.

14 Now let me add here in response to Corn.missioner 15 Kennedy's comments, that the Commission submitted several l6 kinds of comments. The most significant comment dealt with the 17 issue of the authority of CEQ to issue regulations binding an 18 independent regulatory agency.

19 In its final regulation the CEQ adhered to its posi-20 tion that it could adopt regulations binding an independent 21 agency and did not respond to the arguments made on this subject 22 in any detail in its preamble to its final regulations.

23. My .understanding is that the approach that the 24 Commission took, namely to say we undertake to comply voluntaril.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 is the approach which most and maybe all independent commissions!

6

.1 are also following; adopting a view that CEQ cannot bind them,

- rnm4 but that they will as a matter of policy undertake to comply 3 voluntarily.

4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The Justice Department 5 tended to agree that they couldn't bind them.

6 MR.. MALSCH: That ' s correct .

7 There were several.memoranda 8

• COMMISSIONER .GILINSKY:

• They could* or could not'?

10 So that it was not just. the Comn1ission who felt --

11 MR. MALSCH: .* Oh, no, that's right.

12 There was always some considerable doubt about this 13 . proposition. And in fact, even beyond that the Executive Order 14 .only authorized*CEQ to put.out regulations of limiting so-15 ** called procedural provisiona whereas it is quite clear, and 16 I think our comments noted to. CEQ on** the draft regulations mad 17 it clear that they go far.* beyond. purely procedural kinds of 18 regulations.

• 19

• COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Given the Executive Order, 20 the Justice Department's views, and our own views in the 21 matter, our willingness therefore I assume.to comply 22 voluntarily* does extend only to those matters which are 24 MR. MALSCH: Yes~

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 As a matter of fact, *in the substantive areas we

7 emns either looked at them and treated what they.were doing as a 2

good idea, or expressly reserved. In fact, all the 3

reservations that we have and have stated, all go into 4

substantive areas. So the reservations are clearly solidly 5

based as a legal matter.

6 MR. BICKWIT: Have we not agreed* io comply with some 7 substantive --

8 MR. M-~LS.CH: We have agreed to comply with some

,9 substantive, because they -- ih the most part they conform 10 with present practice and didn't appear to cause any

, 1 1'

difficulties.

12 Where they appear to cause difficulties,we reserve.

13 We are not --=-

14 CO.MMISS IONER KENNEDY: We are not, therefore, 15 complying with the regulations. We are simply codifying our 16 existing practice in this regard.

1-,

MR. MALSCH: Or modifying existing practice i8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Modifying.--

19 MR. MALSCH: Where we believe ourselves it is a 20

• good idea.

21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: -- where it is a good idea, 22 reasonable idea.

-23*

MR. **MALSCH : Correct.

24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: So it is a decision of our 25 own, not a compliance with the regulations.

8 MR~ MALSCH: Absolutely.

2 In fact, the paper and the regulation which we 3 are urging the Commission to publish for comments says so 4 expressly, that we are undertaking to comply voluntarily.

5 COMMISSIONER KEN1'1EDY: Fine.

6 MR. MALSCH: Well, that brings us to this paper 7 which.is intended*to*do just that.

8 The action*requested here is Commission approval 9 to publish these proposed regulations for- comment.

10

• We also need a decision on designating a responsible I'

official that will serve as chief contact person Within the 12 agency. And that is also discussed in the paper.

13 What I-thought I would do is discuss, first of all, 14

• the scope.of the regulations; mention a little about the overal 15 .plans for *Part 51; discuss briefly the reservations that the 16 Commission-has. had.in these regulations; items i t has had 17 problems with and wanted to reserve for further study.

18 I will quickly go over a couple of areas where 19

• these proposed r.egulations do represent a departure from 20 practice, and*then r;un over quickly the recent CEQ comments 21 that we received just this morning.

22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: As to those *comments, I would

- ,23 24 Ace-Federal_ Reporters, Inc.

25

• so-licit **the *views -of my colleagues. I can. assure you that I have riot yet had time-to do more than give them a cursory reading; certainly have not had time to take them fully into

9

- mm7 2

3 account and therefore I wish to note here that whereas I do want the briefing to go forward, I do not intend to register a vote at the end of this meeting until after I have had time 4 to review the CEQ views which we received this morning.

5 MR. MALSCH: Let me say I only had a chance to 6 look at them thoroughly because I didn't attend the 9:30 7 Commission meeting. Otherwise I would not have read them 8 even myself. I just got them this morning.

9 COMMISSIONER,AHEARNE: My only comment then on that 10 would be, I am not* sure why we should view them in any way 11 different than any other comments we might receive where we

• 12 publish them.

13 MR. MALSCH: Let me say just.as a sort of preview to 14 what my*reaction to the comments was. The comments do not --

15 the letter does not say, do not publish. They do raise a couple 16 of objections. And, in fact, in the recent Federal Register 17 publication which listed the status of all agencies' compliance, 18 they listed us in a category which they made it clear they 19 expected us to publish regulations by October 10th.

20 So the only inference you could draw from both: 1. the 21 letter and the listing is that they really expect us to publish 22 the regulations for comment, and I think consider their comments 23" during the. normal. commenting process.

24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That was my initial reaction.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 MR. MALSCH: In fact,they say in the letter*these are

10

_mm_s preliminary and their final comments will only be given until 2 then.

3 Okay. First, let me discuss briefly the scope of 4 the regulations.

5 The regulations here proposed deal only with the 6 NRC's domestic licensing and related regulatory functions. They 7 expressly do not apply to export licensing matters within the 8 scope of Part 110.

9 They do cover imports, however.

10 Nor do they apply to any effects which NRC's e 1 I' actions might have on the environments of foreign nations or 1,,

the global comments. And this approach is consistent with 13 the approach taken by CEQ itself in its regulations where it 14 said it is not the purpose of these regulations to resolve 15 the question of whether NEPA applies abroad. That was 16 reserved to what was then an ongoing process to -- (Inaudible.)

17 So in this respect, the scope of Part 51 as proposed 18 is consistent with the CEQ regulations.

19 Now also the regulations say that Commission actions 20 relating to initiating o~ carrying out judicial or civil or 21 administrative enforcement actions are not subject to NEPA. An 1

22 that is consistent also with the CEQ regulations which say thal.

23 So thatwo.uld mean for example that there was no 24 requirement to. do EISs or assessments on enforcement proceeding~

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 like shutting down power reactors or issuing notices of I I

I I

11 violation.

2 Also, on a fairly minor matter.the regulations 3 don't address limitations on our authority derived from the 4 Water Pollution Control Act. That is dealt with separately.

5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: There is no environmental 6

• impact then assumed* on the shutting down of a power reactor?

MR. MALSCH: *. There would be. It is just they are 7.

8 excluded from the NEPA process. :iThere is no need to do an 9

EIS.

10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I understand. It is an 1l interesting anomaly.

MR.: MALSCH: . I think the concern on the part of CEQ

• 12 13 is that you impose NEPA.* obligations, .you would*discourage 14 -enforcement action.

15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Of course.

16 MR. MALSCH: Let me mention also the plans for the 17 parts.* What we have got here is proposed regulations to 18 implement NEPA in a Subpart Aof Part 51.

. 19 The old Part51 dealt only with NEPA. The plan here 20 is to have.a greatly expanded Part 51. At*least eventually a 21

. greatly expanded Part 51 p in which NEPA would be covered in*

22 Subpart A. Other environmental statutes would be covered in other *subparts.

23 24 Now there are a lot of .other.environmental laws

• Ace;Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 that affect the way the Commission*exercises authority which

12 are not dealt with in our regulations. And the theory was

- mmlO 2 the time had come for us to codify some of these laws, and 3 some of our procedures. And that will be done in other 4 subparts.

5 Here, for example, we would add regulations 6 dealing with Section on Coordination Act, Clean Air Act, 7 Historical Preservation Act and all these other environmental 8 statutes. So that we would have in one place, one part, the 9 vast bulk of NRC's so-called environmental regulations.

10 Thirdly, let me mention the items we had reserved

, 1 I' on for further study.

12 Items wher we chose not to comply with certain 13 parts of the CEQ regulations pending further consideration of 14 them. These items were all the ones as noted in the Commissions 15 letter to CEQ which they prepared in response to the early 16 Commission paper.

'i The regulations say, proposed ~egulations say that 18 we will follow the CEQ regulations with certain designated 19 exceptions. And these exceptions are that we would first 20 devote further study to the requirement that we consider each 21 alternative, give substantial treatment to each alternative 22 considered in detail. That we give further study to the provision which dealt with our obligation to gather information 23 24 where*:there are information gaps, and our obligation to do so-Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 called worst case analyses.

13 rnrnll And i t would also give further study tothe 2 requirement that we prepare - NEPA impact statements in circum-3 stances. where we had failed to-act rather than took positive 4 ,action. This latter category-deals with such things as 5 request-for enforcement action.and petitions for rulemaking, 6 - where the CEQ regulations arguably would :.,at least arguably 7 .have required us to do EISs in all rulemaking petition denials.

8 Which would have*caused soi:ne problems.

9, We are reserving on"t-hese*for further study.

10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Would you take a moment 11 and explain the logic. It escapes me.

12 MR. MALSCH:. _Behind the CEQ requirement? .

13 - COMMISSIONER *KENNEDY: Yes.

14 MR. MALSCH: I think what they had in mind was 15 situations where the law requires an agency to act, but it 16 fails to do so._ - Arid that failure has significant adverse 17 environmental impact.

18 The regulations are not so clear on -that point, and l.9 .our problem is as.written,.whatwould we do for example if some 20 one filed a petition to shut down all currently operating nucle r-21 power reactors.* Obviously, if we granted the petition it 22 would *have a significant environmental impact.

• **Therefore, argualb1y th_e

• CEQ regulations would have 24 required us to do an E*rs before we denied or granted such a

• .,Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 petition.

14 rnml2 But if we conceded*_that proposition then we would 2 be committing large resources every time someone filed a 3 petLtion. So we have got to have some discretion as to how 4 do we treat these kinds of things.

5 The same is true for 2.206 requests for enforcement 6 action.

7 What we did is, we did not expressly acknowledge 8 the CEQ requirement, but we made sure that in drafting our 9 own regulations, we reserved flexibility to do EISs in any 10 case in which we thought we ought to do one, and that would 11 include rulemaking petitions , and enforcement actions if we 12 really thought we ought to* do one. But we didn't expressly 13 adopt the requirement.

14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The decision as to -whether 15 either it is required or desired rests with us?

16 MR.* MALSCH: That's correct.

17 If we had adopted this particular provision, we 18 would have lost a lot of discretion to do or not do one 19 in these kinds of,circumstances.

20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is it clear that they 21 really intended that EISs be prepared in these situations where 22 the Commission felt that, or is that just a possible reading of

.23 the way it was 24 MR. MALSCH: It is a possible reading.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 We discussed it with them and it was* just very

15 em13 unclear what they had in mind.

2 I think what they had in mind are a fairly limited j 3 class of situations in which, as I say, there was an obligatio 4 to act and the agency should have acted but did not, and the 5 failure to act was more of an action-than an inaction.

6 COMMISSIONER BFADFORD: . But let's see, if the agency 7 acknowledged that it should have acted and did not, then once 8 you get over that threshold the first thing that ought to*

9 happen is the preparation o,f "an EIS.

10 MR. MALSCH: That's right.

11 Whenever we discussed this with them it was very 12 unclear exactly what they had in mind. They raised this 13 issue again in their comments and they say some situations 14 you will be required to do one.

15 I guess I agree, maybe there are situations we*

16 ought to do one, but the regulations the CEQ put out was not 17 sufficiently discriminatory. It would have removed a lot of 18

• our discretion. So we elected to study it further, but then 19 res;rved authority we always have to do EISs whenever we want to.

20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I suppose the kind of 21 situation thee.might arise is one in which someone petitions 22 us to take an action rather than *continue to tolerate either

.23 .a. certain l.evel of risk or a certain possibility of a certain 24 type of emission.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 So the argument could be once.we have made the

16

-14 decision that_ that is tolerable, we should still state what the.impact is; if we could-tolerate that risk or that emission 2

3 for whatever long a period we have in mind.

4 MR.MALSCH: The only problem is, you could almost 5 single out any area in which something the Commission is doing 6 is having an environmental impact. -_ And if all* you need to do 7 to, trigger an obligation to do an EIS. ,is to say. change it, 8, then we.are talking about a lot of *resources.

9 C0MM:I.SSIQUER.,,BRADEORD: , I ,am ,not a¢lyocating it,*. I'm 10 just *.trying to make sense of* it.

I j MR.MALSCH: I t i s hard. I mean everyone can see 12 that there may .be some* situation in which you really ought to 13 do one. *But to put your finger on exactly when that is, is

,4 --difficult.

15 I think CEQ may have tried to and not been too 16 *.-successful in the regulations. They tried to in: discussions 1-,

' f and wer.e not much more successful. I think we. just felt.that 18 * .the -area was so** uncertain. that we really couldn't in good 19 conscience simply adopt the. language they *had. We had to 20

• reserve .on it.

21 C0MMISSI0N~R GILINSKY: Well, just deciding to 22 prepare an elaborate EIS is in itself a* major* commitment of 24 MR. MALSCH: Oh, yes.

• -Ace-Federal l;leporters, Inc.

25 Particularly so called programmatic statements which I

17 eum1s have taken an enormous amount*of resources.

2 *COMMISSIONER .GILINSKY: Unless-you draw.the line, 3 there is no end to.it --

4 MR. MALSCH: That's the problem.

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: -"- to the statements.

6 _You get statements on other statements.

7 MR. $LSCH: *Right. *You get statements tiered upon 8 *statements.

COMMISSIONER GIL.INSKY: Yes.

10 MR. MASLCH: Three other*things we reserved on.

11 One we simply said we wanted to reserve the right

- 12 13 14 to examine_ future changes to the CEQ' s regulations to see

• whether or not we would adopt them.

We reserved the right to prepare an EIS whenever 15 we had _jurisdiction over an activity, and we reserved the 16 right tomake final. decisions .. on matters within our jurisdiction 17 even- though another agency had requested-a so-called 18 predecision referral to the Council.

19 The CEQ. regulations had provisions whereby there is 20 -a. dispute-solving mechanism set. up within CEQ and the Executive 21 Branch. And had*we agreed to adhere to-the outcome oi that 22 kind of process -- we coul-d not agree to the outcome* of that

- 23*

24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25

. *kind *of process without doing something. that was inconsistent

'with our -- the concept: of NRC as an independent agency ..

• Bowe reserved on that.

18

• 2 3

Okay, let me briefly run over the-~ where the proposed regulations amount to a signficant change in prior practice.

4 First, the regulation lists additional activities 5 where we will do EISs beyond the ones that are presently 6 listed. This includes away-from-reactor spent fuel storage 7 facilities and virious kinds of licensing actions dealing with 8 high~level waste repositories.

9 We also have additional areas-where we are required 10 to do environmental assessments. And this includes spent I' fuel pool expansions on existing reactor sites, backfilling 12 repositories and a few classes of materials licenses.

13 So we have reviewed the existing categories in

.14 present Part 51, and in many cases expanded them, in some 15 cases narrowed them down.

16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Could you briefly state the 17 difference between a statement-and an assessment?

i8 MR. MALSCH: Well, the idea is in the regulations 19 that an agency does three things: Either an action is 20 categorically excluded, in which it does nothing.*. Or, it does 21 a full environmental impact statement.

22 Now it does a full EIS, if it is listed as

-23. requiring one in its regulations or if the agency decides 0

24 purely as a matter of discretion to do one, or if the agency Ace-Federal Reporters, lhc.

25 after having done a so-called appraisal, decides that this is

19 I 1 indeed an action that has a significant effect on *the. human 2 *environment.

3 The primary purpose of- the appraisal is to handle 4 . the.doubtful cases, cases in which you are not sure whether 5 or not you need an.EIS, and you will need to document whether 6 or not .typically in cases you are not going to do one, you 7 will need to .doc.ument why not. Ano. that is the primary *purpose 8 of appraisals, to document the analysis.that the agency makes 9

• whether or not t.o do ari EIS in these doubtful cases.

10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: How much shorter than an 11 environmental impact statement is this appraisal?

12 MR. MALSCH: .Well, in concept it should be a lot 13 shorter.

14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: How about in reality.

15 MR. MALSCH: In reality they have been a lot shorter.

16 *. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

• Do you use appraisal and 18 MR. MALSCH:. Yes.

19 The old regulation~ used the word ~appraisal." I 20 think the *newterrninology would be "environmental assessment."

21 There is a looseness in terminology here.

22 There is a problem though, because assessments.are

• . 23

• not only designed. to decide whether to do EISs in. doubtful 24 cases*, they are also used to comply with other parts of NEPA Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 that apply. to agency actions even when the action :.. .. ,. a:

20 doesn't involve an EIS . . For.example,*NEPA imposes. an obligatiol 2 to .look at alternatives*in all cases involving.unresolved conflicts concerning al terna ti ve uses of available resources, I1 3

4 even though the agency isn't doing *an*EIS.

5 So the appraisal also~- the-assessments also 6

• perform a subsidiary* function.

• They are going* to take care 7

• of an agency's NEPA obli_gations in situations where they do 8 riot have to do environment.al impact !3tatements.

9 .For example, on an amendment to a license in which 10 we are doing.an appraisal, the appraisal or assessment would, i1 A, document the .fact that this doesn't result in a significant 12 adverse environmental impact,. and also contain the agency's 13 . . evaluation** of

• alternatives in . one sing le document so we would 14 comply with NEPA.

15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Marty, is it correct the 16 universe now" has three ty :r;es in it? You have EIS, EIA and

. 17 categorical exclusions?

18 MR. MALSCH: That's correct.

19

• COMMISSIONER ARE.ARNE: So tha tthe finding of nega ti v 20 .declaration,* that*_*s out?

21 MR., MALSCH:. *That's out.

22 It i~ .replaced *by a finding c,f no .* significant impact which must follow, which only follows an appraisal.

23:..

24 . COMMISSIONER AHEAR..'l\fE: . So that everything .that is.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

• 25 not excluded, must end up*with either an .EIA*or: an EIS?

21

• • MR. MALSCH: That's corr.ect. 'Which .is whywe had 2 to be* very careful in dra*fting the categorical exclusion 3 categories. And this is different in .the present.regulations

.4 which. pretty much say unless it .is listed in these. categories,

5. don't do an appraisal or an 'EIS.

6 COMMISSIONER*AHEARNE: I understand that.

7 What is the philosophy underlying that? Is it 8 philosophy that* there were no.t enough cases where a true findin

.9 . of a* negative dec:laJJation . was,,appropriate?

• 10 MR.* MALSCH : I think the concern* was* that a lot of actions were falling ~nto the cracks ih the sense that they 12 were just never looked at.

13 *. COM.l'-USSIONER AHEAR..'t\TE: But that could have been taken 14

• care of by a fourth category which would. have* been after 15 review of a negative declaration.

16 MR. MALSCH:

• Okay. Except I think what .would have 17 happened would be that* you would have, ih that scenario, sort 18 * . of .two categories. of assessments. You know, real big assessment

.. 19 *.* instead of mini-assessments.

20 And I.think thatis probably still feasible to do 21 in sort.of minor actions that are~. you know, sort of one 22 little r1otch above categorical exclusions. I think it would .

.. ,,-23 ..

• still be quite _reasonable to do very abbreviated assessments 24 or appraisals.

'Ace-Federal *Reporters, Inc.

25 The regulations are quite clear that you,don't ha~

22 rnm20 to spend a lot of time addressing issues that aren't significan 2 and alternatives that aren't viable.

3 The conclusion you reach upon looking at an action 4 is, if it is not categorically excluded, it is not really a 5 big deal, there don't appear to be any impact, there are no 6 feasible alternatives -- or the ones that do appear £easible ar 7 clearly not warranted. And I think we are talking about a brief 8 kind of assessment or appraisal.

9 In cases where it is more.doubtful, we are talking a 10 much more expanded document.

11 So, .while there is no formal division into little 12 mini negative declarations on the one hand and appraisals or 13 assessments on the other, I think as a matter of practice 14 that there will be variations in the depth ~nd details of 15 these*appraisals depending upon the action. And there should 16 be nothing wrong with that under our regulations.and the CEQ's 17 regulations.

13 Okay, the next change I want to mention is the 19 .scoping process. This is a new concept which CEQ introduced 20 in its regulations. And the idea is that in cases wle:'e the 21 agency has decided to do a full impact statement, it s.hould 22 very early in the process conduct a scoping process which

2J would have as its . purpose, clear identification of the nature 24 of the federal action, identification of the significant Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 issues that need detailed consideration, identification of the*

23 issues which are not significant.and you won't want detailed I

I

• 2 .consideration, consideration.of who is going to prepare which I I

I 3 *.. portions of the statement, and consideration of timing in 4 rel a ti on ship to.* other federal actions.

5 It is really intehded to be an open planning process 6 which will get the agency to make early preliminary decisions 7 on basic questions of scope and detail, and will get the 8* public *involved early on in these kinds of decisions.

9 We implemented this concept. in. o,ur. r.egtilations 10 which would call. for a scoping process and would call 11 for the director of the appropriate staff off ice or his

12. designee. prepare a concise summary of the scoping process 13 just after it is completed*. And that* su:mmary would,

• in theory, 14 guide later statement preparation.

15 "The'.*next change'! want to mention is the relation-16 ship between EISs and :public hearings~

17 Under our present regulations, the impact statements 18 are considered in the *NRC hearing process. If the statements 19

• made* by the staf.f in its **statement are changed in any. way in 20 the initial decision or* in .the Appeal* Board 1 s decision, then 21 that decision itself is regarded as an amendment to.the staff 22 . impact statement .

.,23., So in ,co,r:1cept in, let's say, a power reactor 24 *licensing case you have a staff impact statement and an initial Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc .

. 25 decision which the statement modifies or reaches different

24 tt22 conclusions than the staff, is also a kind of impact statement, 2 and so on up through the line.

3 That concept is now changed in these proposed 4 regulations. Instead we have built upon the CEQ's new concept 5 of a record of decision.

6 The regulations require that there be a record of 7 decision in all EIS cases. And what we have done is said that 8 the staff will prepare a proposed record of decision in 9 situations where either the Commission has.final authority or 10 the matter can be subject to hearing.

H COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That was a term that I was 12 unfamiliar with, and running into it in your paper for the 13 first time.

14 Could you explain a little bit what change that 15 makes in what now the staff would do? 'What -is a record of 16 decision?

17 MR. MALSCH: Well, it is not much of a change. I 18 think the record of decision will, under these regulations, 19 look very similar, maybe identical to the up-front summary of 20 conclusions tha:you ordinarily see in a staff final impact 21 statement.

22 Now the CEQ objective was iomake sure that EISs

• 23

• became*- decisionrnaking documents. There were some_ agencies 24 which separated out the EIS process from the decision proce*ss.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 And the two never clearly came together.

25

- mm23 We've never had that problem because we have always 2 cons~dered EISs as a part of our decision process. So it is 3 not that big of a change for us.

4 All it would require really would be some separate 5 attention given to, if not a separate document, at least a 6 separate page that would be labled "Record of Decision." And 7 it*would be essentially a summary of the ultimate decisions 8 reached in a NEPA review.

9 *What.we did 'Was, we just built upon that concept 10 in our regulations and said, hey listen, why have the initial i1 decision modify the EIS, which is this big, fat document and

- * ,L 13 14 pretend that initial decisions, appeal board decisions, Commission decisions are impact *statements, which they really don't look like at all. ,Instead, we will simply have them 15 modify the record of decision which makes a lot more sence, 16 because that is really what they are.

17 So we abolished the idea of modifying the EIS 18 through the decision process and introduced the concept of 19 modifying the record of decision for the process. And I think 20 that would be a lot simpler, and it is more conceptually in 21 tune with what happened.

22 But it is a new concept in the CEQ regulations.

- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 It is in theory a new concept for us, but it is very similar to our practice to having summary conclusions in EISs.

We also adopted parallel procedures for having

26 en24 proposed findings of no significant impact. These would 2 parallel records -of decision so that for example if there were 3 an amendment proceeding and the staff concluded after doing an 4 appraisal, that there was no significant impact, that finding 5 would be subject to review through the review proce*ss, which 6 again is a new concept, but is pretty much in tune with what 7 the present practice is.

8 The next item I wanted to mention, and I guess the 9 last item that I want to mention, is 'the change in present 10 practices, the one that I just discussed with Commissioner I' Ahearne. That is the concept of categorical exclusions. It

- 1,L 13 14

'l is a different concept ..

Something falls into either one of the three categories, and if it is not categorically .excluded, it must 15 be either the subject of an assessment or appraisal or a full 16 impact statement.

17 We have -- this was probably the most difficult part 18 of the proposed regulations to draft.

19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Because it did away with the 20 previous ability to make a finding of no --

21 MR. MALSCH: That's right. The prior regulations 22 simply say if it is not listed, as it requiring an appraisal

• 23 or an EIS, Bssentially fotget it. You needn't do one unless 24 there are unusual circumstances.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 Also~ you know, in allhonesty wheri those regulation

27 ezs were put out, revised,* they.were pretty much picked Up from 2 the initial Calvert Cliff response regulations in 1971-72.

3 And I don't think-it has been since '72 that the staff has 4 ,taken a,carefu.L look at the various categories of actions

.5 to see which ones might or might not require environmental 6 reviews.

7 They did take a much more careful. look this time,

-8 so the listings you.have are n6t only as a result of the*CEQ

.:9 regu'latd:ons, but *also a':::tesult of the staff '.s own reexamination 10 of the various categories of actions.

11 An effort was made to. bring *out and put at ieast

• 12 in .the. assessment category, some kinds of. licensing actions

. 13 . where the staff .really felt they *ought to. do appraisals and 14 perhaps ought to do impact statements.

• 15 Now I have .to say. that it is a difficult process 16 . because there are many a*reas, particularly areas dealing with 17 mater:j.als licensing 1.actioris. The staff was unable* to point to 18

• a whole* series of documented environmental reviews .. And so

• 19

• the decision to put them in a categorical exc_lusion category 20 is based upon essentially just judgments of*the people involved 21 in the process.

22 -' And we acknowledge that. There is no l_hiding the

• *.23 * *f*act .:in our :rules, and we specifically say, . _ listen, 24 this is based upon experience. We cari '*.t confirm this absolutely Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

.25 But to do so would require an enormous amount ,of resources, and

28 I

.26 frankly the reason why we have this category is we would jI 2 rather spend the resources on the problems we see as significan.

'1 I

3 and not. spending th_e resources doing a lot of assessments. [

4 So our problem was highlighted in a very candid 5 fashion in the preambles of the rules. The idea was, let's 6 see what happens. Some of them, reasonable minds Can differ 7 about, and let's find out. But at least let's propose them, 8 get comments out and then make a final *decision.

9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE.: Caul d I ask one or two que s tio s?

10 MR. MALSCH: Yes.

11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I notice on page 33 where 12 you are talking about the licensing of fuel cycle plants, 13 et cetera, and you say if there is no significant construction 14 impact.

15 Now that *seemed to be -- the other three items were 16 listed early in the general description as part of the 17 categorization. And that similar point is picked up again 18 on page 35 in number 12.

19 Now by construction impact,

• are you.* talking about 20 the physical environment? Is that what you had in mind?

21 MR. MALSCH: That was the idea, moving equipment 22 in, knocking down trees, building new walls, these kinds of

,.23 things. That'.s what we had in mind.

24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Why .would that then be listed Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 back in the previous area where you had the other three as

29 emm27 being the major characteristics?

2 MR. MALSCH: The previous three?

3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. In.an earlier section 4 you talked about the criteria will be no increase in the 5 effluents, no increase in occupational exposure, no increase 6 in the potential for radiological accident. The emphasis is 7 all on that, which is more on the radiological effect.

8 Now you have introduced the physical environment 9 construction. I am not questioning why it.is introduced,;

10 more why isn't it in the earlier --

i1 MR. MALSCH: In the earlier ones we tried to 12 draft them so as to rule out construction impacts as a 13 p~actical matter,. I think. For example, nUI'[).ber 9, that says:

14 "Issuance of an amendment to a permit or 15 license for a reactor which changes the requirement 16 with respect to . II 17 This is on page 30.

II 18 .installation or use of a facility component 19 located within the restricted area.

20 The theory was that changing a component within 21 the restricted area, which is the plant boundary, would not 22 likely to see any significant construction impacts. That

- , 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25

• ,was the the0r,y *underlying, for example in number 9, didn't have :the same qualification in 9 as we did in the other one.

why we

30 ernm28 1 And I think we tried to draft the other ones in a 2 similar fashion so that we in some other fashion ruled out 3

• construction impacts.

4 That was the concept. Hopefully we did it right.

5 That was the intent.

6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You, at least, tried to be 7 consistent.

8 MR. MALSCH: We tried to be consistent, that's right.

9 COMM.I,$S.I.ONER .AHEARNE: In the question of radiographer,s 10 where you have categorical exclusion, is there an underlying i1 concept there that an impact upon a small set of individuals doesn't require an assessment, whereas impact if it is on a 13 larger set; there is some threshold on the number of people?

14 MR. MALSCH: I think that is a doubtful proposition.

15 I don 1 t think we can itemize something like that.

16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, given that we know that 17 a number of radiographers end up getting overexposed, I was 18 just curious as to the justification.

19 MR. MALSCH: The justification I think relied upon 20 the fact that for the most part exposures were within licensed 21 limits.

22 Now let me mention that we were very careful,

.23 thoµgh, in defining this whole category of categorical exclusions.

24 We reserve ourselves the authority to do either appraisals or Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 EISs.

31

-9 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I understand.

MR. MALSCH: And frankly, I think that will be 3 essential to save a lot of these categorical exclusions, 4 b~cause there are clearly going to be some items in a lot of 5 these categories where anybody is going to look at them and 6 say, "Oh, my God, you have got to do at least an appraisal."

7 And that may be true for some radiography licenses.

8 I don't know. And because of that and only because of that,

.*,9 we thought we could get along with a justification that 10 was general. We relied upon general practice or general 11 I compliance or generally a good record. Otherwise there wouldn't I

12 \ be any hope because in almost all these actions there is going 13 to be at least some licenses for whichthe justification is 14 not going to hold true.

15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Was the general philosophy to 16 try to provide a list which would encompass all of those cases

, ~

where under the previous Regs you would have made a finding of

' I rn no significant impact, and so therefore at least you have got 19 all the cases where you might want to reach that conclusion 2C and you always have the provision you mentioned, that you 21 could do an assessment.

22 MR. MALSCH: Well, with the exception -- you know

- *23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 we did review all the old categories, and we immediately removed from the old catchall, do-nothing category, anything that the staff really thought might be significant. We then

32

• .. l . tried to see what we could do by way of categorical exclusions 2* for the remaining.categories. And we clearly hadnot got as

• . 3

• broad an exclusion considering the categories all together

• 4 -as.we.had*before.

5 But I'd say most at the.actions which we previously 6 had. put in this do-nothing ca-tegory are picked up in the 7 listing here.

• However, for the first time* you see an attempt a to .justify the exclusion; There was no attempt to justify that 9 under prior regu1a-ti:ons.

10. The.other one that -- exclusion that might provoke 11 *. a lot of controveisy is *the one on Section 274 agreements.

12 Just entering into or. amending agreements ~'11. say is cat-13 gorical]y excluded.

14 The justification we gave there is the argument 15 the staff at least has always used to say i t wou1dn' t do 16 assessments or impact statements. And in fact when I think we 17 made an effort to do a kind -of assessment on the recent 18 Rhode Island. agreement arid what we came up with was essentially 19

• the same* as what we come* up with *here as a categorical 20 justification.

21 The difficulty is that the justification you come 22 up with under an agreement is a very general kind of thing that

• *23* *looks *-fexactly like this. And the thought was that if that is 0

24 .the best we .can do on. an -individual agreement, it doesn't Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 make any sense not to make some kind of generic decision.

33 But again, if something came up and there was 2 ~eason to do one in a. particular case, the regulations give us 3

that flexibility.

4 Interestingly enough, CEQ didn't comment adversely 5 on that particular exclusion. I would have thought they might 6

have in view of their prior involvement in some litigation on 7 uranium mills. But they did not.

8 COM.~ISSIONER BRADFORD: The inclusion of it at this 9

point I assume does no mo:r;-e than. continue the existing practi c 10 until we have the comments-back and decide what to do about it?

11 MR. MALSCH: Correct.

12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes, the recommendation is 13 continue with existing regulations until the final action 14 MR. MALSCH: That is right~: But also, on this 15 particular one,the idea that this.is excluded is consistent 16 with our present priorities.

17 COML~ISSIONER BRADFORD: Marty, how would that apply 18 to a decision not.to continue to concur in an agreement, in 19 effect to withdraw an agreement?

20 MR. MALSCH: We didn't address that. I thinkthe 21 idea was that would be in the nature of some kind of enforcemen 22

• action, probably be excluded altogether.

But I think we would have to face that when we did 24 it. I'm not sure whether we really would want to do an Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 assessment of something like that or not.

34 i I' .

.If yo~ had a particular infraction situation 2 confronting.you, which you probably would in a situation, it 3 would be a lot e~sier to do an assessment than you would 4 **looking_at a program prospectively and trying to decide what 5 the. impacts a:re. So that. ma:y be a* 1i ttle more amenable to an 6 assessment than just entering into an a,greement or amending one.

7 So I don't know.

8 But the idea was that that would probably be co \ered 9 by the . overall exclusion for . en,forcement* type. action~

10 , Of course if we took over, if we revoked an* agreemen ,

i1 and took it over, then we would be issuing the l.icense and 12 they .would all be federal actions and the whole licensing area

13. in the -state would now be subject to this Part 51.

14 SJ you could probably argue that quite apart from 15 the fact*this is kind of an enforcement action, the*net 16 effect of a takeover can't be any adverse environmental 17 impact because then it brings into play the whole federal 18 legal process.

19 -Okay. Let me just conclude by mentioning, going 20 briefly over the comments.we got from the Council on 21 . Environmental Quality. The ones we just got.*

22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The ones we received today?

• . MR. ,.MALSCH: Today.

24 We had sent paper over to them I think in early*

Ace-Federal. Reporters, Inc.

25 August. You know, they have had the paper for some time. We

.3 35 had been .calling and asking --

2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I don't suppose there is 3 any connection between the fact that we were going to have 4 this meeting today and the .fact that we got the letter today?

5 MR. MALSCH: I can't imagine why there would be.

6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I am sure there isn't.

7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I trust your insight into the 8 development of the regulation is a little bit better.

9 COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY: . Te.11. us .about the letter.

10 MR. MALSCH: Okay.

" i I' They had ten spe~ific comments. The most important

- 12 13 14 thing I think generally about the letter is .that they did not tell us not to publish the regulations for comment, which is what the propoaal was. And as I indicated before, they 15 do apparently expect us to publish the proposed regulations by 16 October 10th.

17 They did say as a general matter the staff did a 18 good job. They did say these are preliminary views, and 19 they would only offer final comments after we publish the 20 proposed regulations.

21 Now specifically 22 COMMISSIONER llliEARNE: May I ask you a question on 23 that, ,Marty.

24 They really say that they won't provide comment Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 until we do our final action. I was a little puzzled by that.

36 emn34 I had thought that they would be one of the groups providing 2 comments when we put these out for public comment. But their 1

3 sentence is that Council final review ill be made after the 4 public review and comment process.

5 MR. MALSCH: I think that their plan is to become 6 involved wiili~evelopment of the regulations on a consulting 7 basis, given these comments, which is to consider as a comment 8 in the comment process.

9 And I guess *the plan would be that what we ought 10 to do is do pretty much what we have done. with this paper, i1 namely receive comments, analyze them, prepare a revised

- 12 13 14 regulation with a preamble and a comment analys.is,. and send it to the' Commission; at the same time send it to CEQ for comment.

15 And I think we would get a comment right back that 16 would look something like this, I suppose.

17 I think that is what they have in mirid. I think 18 they generally do want to be* helpful, and.they would like to 19 see us come up with this collection of regulations that are --

20 implement as many of their regulations as possible. And they 21 have in mind a*grand de~ign whereby all agencies are subject 22 to this uniform set of regulations, which as a general objective

- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 is.a good idea. And they would like to pursue that.

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

MR. MALSCH:

Yes.

Let me briefly go over the ten

37

• mm35 specific comments.

2 The first one is* they had difficulty wit~ ciur

3. reservation regarding 1502.14 which requires substantial 4 treatment to each alternative considered in detail.*

5 Now the reason why we reserved on this was explained in the prior Com:mi*ssion paper. . Namely,* we .were concerned that 7 this was not consistent with existing case law on the rule

• 8 of reason and wo.uld require us to change our* present 9 ,,practice*of do'.ing alternative site reviews for power plants

.10 based only on reccinnaisance-level information.

11 Now the Commission has before it a separate paper on*

12 the subject, a whoJe new collec.tion of regulations that would 13 deal with th.e alternative site review process.

14

• And I* think that is the place to take up this 15 particular kind of issue.*** It is. my belief .that given: what 16 CEQ says here, namely that they do intend this statement 'be 17 read along with the existing case law and rule of reason, that 18

• what the staff has proposed in this other paper is* probably 19 consistent with the requirement to give !!substantial treatment 20 to each .alternative considered in detail.*"

21 But, it is .. an issue treated in some depth in .the 22 other paper. I think the*recornmendation in the paper here is

• ,.,23 . tha,t . the Commission consider this *issue with that paper, rather 24- than with this one~

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25

• I ,think in the end we will -come out by saying that

38 eun36 the.regulation on this point by CEQ should not cause us*any 2 difficulty .

.3 The second *and third comments deal with 01.1r 4 reservations dealing with information gaps and the obligation 5 to do a ,worst-case. analysis.

6 We don~t think that their regulations on this point 7 are consistent with existing case law despite th~ir saying to 8 the contrary here. But beyond that, the* staff had a lot of 9 *difficulty imagining exactly what a worst-case analysis is in*

10 *

• some situations. And further, this is all tied up with the I' issue of ~hould we consider Class Nine accidents

• 12*. And the. thought in the paper here was we just 13 :couldn't decide *that generic question in this paper. We would 14 just have to reserve on it. And I think that is still a good 15 recommendation.

16 It is a matter* that 1.s addressed directly in the 17 *Muller Siting*Policy *Task Force, for example.

18 COMMIS'S IONER AHEARNE: *. I would like to get back

• to 19

• that. after you have finished these ten.

20 MR. MALSCH: Okay.

21 Number four is a comment that we should provide for 22 discretionary preparation of an EIS in all cases where we

,.,23. ha:v:e. ino,ependent authority and not maridate that in all cases.

24 And in fact,

• looking at the letter we sent to CEQ --

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I was puzzled by our letter

39 rnm37 where in two places there we said we reserve the right. Where 2 the regulations end up saying we will.

3 M.R . .MALSCH: I think frankly we ought to modify the 4 regulations to say we reserve the right. That would not only 5 accommodate the CEQ comment but also be more consistent with 6 the letter we sent to CEQ. I think that was inadvertent on 7 our part, we should have reserved the right rather than 8 impose on ourselves the obligation.

9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And there was a second one 10 also, wasn't there? On making the final decision.

i1 Similarly in the letter we sent it was more reserve 12 the right.

13 MR_- MALSCH: I'll have to check.

14 COM.MISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. We said in our letter, 15 NRC reserves the right to make -- and what we say here in 16 the Reg is, the Commission will make a final decision.

17 M.R . .MALSCH: I think there again we should modify 18 the paper to be consistent absolutely with the letter.

19 Number five is just the CEQ comment that they 20 really wish you would adopt their regulation on any action 21 requiring an EIS, and we discussed tpat a little bit here 22 before.

- 23 Number six is a criticism of our proposal to 24 categorically exclude all Commission actions related to Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 safeguards and physical security.

40 Now two comments on that. First of all, we did not

- rnm38 I 2

exclude all actions. We only excluded license amendment actionsJ I

3 We clearly -- the regulations clearly require at least appraisa~s, and depending upon the appraisals,impact statements for generic 4

safeguards regulations, like amendments to Part 73.

5 So we are only talking about license specific 6

safeguard actions. Fer example approval of safeguard plans and 7

the like.

8 Now again I think that the Council's views dating 9

10 back to '75 which they refer to are probably reference to the a

I' 1 very early letter we got on GESMO back in '75,saying you need

, '"l

• ,L to do a full environmental impact statement, and don't split 13 it up and look at socio-economic and civil rights kind of 14 impacts, which would go directly to a proposal if we had made 15 one, to exclude safeguards regulations, which we are not 16 excluding.

17 I don't think that their comment in '75 is clearly applicable to the kind of exclusion we have here, which is 18 19 much more limited in nature.

Now beyond that, again this is one of those areas in 20 which I think reasonable minds might differ. I think what we 21 have got here is a reasonable, rational basis for an exclusion.

22 And the proposal is, let's publish it for comment and see what 23 24 we get back and then reevaluate it then.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 For the rnost part, the kinds of actions here would

- 41 mm39 probably entail notenvironmental impacts/but economic and 2 social kinds 6f effects. And seems it does say in* the 3 regulations that these kinds of effects _alone are never grounds 4 - for doing a full EIS, i t may presumably be grounds

• for 5 doing some kind of an appraisal. So, -at least on those grounds 6 the kinds-of amendments we are talking about here:.are slightly 7

• different than the usual kinds of amendntents you would see a dealing with effluents or power l_evels or accidents or designs.

-9 or construction.

10 Pretty much the same goes for the comments on

'I ', number seven. I -think we have got a rational basis for 12 excluding them, but reasonable* minds_ might differ on this.

13 And- the recommendation was, let_' s put it_ out for comment and 14 see what we get back*and reevaluate it on the basis.of comments 15 Number e*ight, r think is a misreading of the 16 regulation. The ~xclusion they are talking about*here is one 17 that only *deals with materials licenses, and it is quite clear 18 -that we are not excluding any reactors-in_ any-of the categorica 19 exclusions .. In* .fact, under our regulation -a research reactor 20 is specifically_subject to a minimum appraisal. So .I think 21 they just, misread the regulations~;

22 Number nine, again it is a little misleading. We

_ .. ,23 ,_qid *!'};pt ,~~c;lude from NEPA review decontamination, decommissionin 24 and reuse of.facilities.

Ace-Federal Reporters, -Inc.

25 What we ~aid was that they would be subject to an

42

.40 appraisal. And the idea was that as usual you do appraisals 2 to see whether you want to do an In any case, 3 in these categories if on the basis of an evaluation there 4 appear to be significant adverse environmental impacts, we 5 do an impact statement.

6 The staff wasn't prepared to say that in all 7 cases every action in these categories require a full EIS.

8 But it isn't quite accurate to say we are excluding these from 9 the NEPA review. We are clearly not doing that.

10 MR. KENNEKE: Marty, may I ask a question?

11 Why is it clear that environmental assessments 12j might be done? Is that optional?

j 13 .COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: - You only have three categories 14 It is an EIS, and EIA or it is categorically excluded.

15 MR. KENNEKY: It is categorically excluded.

16 There is an option, nevertheless to do it.

1-,

'/ MR. MALSCH: There is also an option-in the sense 18 that if you look at something, the record for whichthe 19 regulations require an appraisal, ~ou decide right away it is 20 an EIS, you can go directly to an EIS and not go through the 21 trouble of*doing a separate document. And that would be true 22 in these categories also.

- .23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think Al's point was, why 24 not put it down in the categorical exclusion and then look at i Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 to see whether you need an EIA. And I would imagine the

43 1 answer is that this is. an *area that falls on the other side 2 of that gray area.

3 MR. MALSCH: The thought was, these are the kinds 4 -of things-that are highly controversial. It would just not 5 be reasonable to pretend that.these things normally do not

-6 - require any environmental review -whatsoever. Norma_lly they 7 would.

8 Number.ten, I have pretty much the same response.

9 The idea was if you put them in the category which would 10 require an EIS, it will be impossible to downgrade it to an 11 appraisal. But you can always upgrade an appraisal to an EIS.

-- 12 13 14 So there really is not much *harm in listing actions and requiring appraisals. for them as opposed to requiring.full EISs. I think we only require full EISs in cases where we 15 really are sure that that is what we would be doing.

16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: - Al--does that_ pretty well 17 cover your presentation?

18 Al, you had some remarks.

'C I ,

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I had a couple of questions.

20 COMMISSIONER.AHEARNE: So did I.

21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I wonder if I could let Al 22

• have a chance to.make a couple of comments.

-  ;.23,.

24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25

• MR.

• KENNEKE : The most significant point we were making was, our thought was that you, *-the Commissioners,

_should look at these categorical ex9lusions and decide whether-

44 mm42 your feeling was that they were excluded at the right point, 2 or perhaps some.more should be added or dropped from the list 3 before. going to*public comment.

4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Even at the proposed rule 5 stage?

6 MR. KENNEKE: Right.

7 You tend to bias the outcome.

8 COMMISSIONER AHEAFNE: I agree with Al in the 9 sense it is certainly true, it would b~ a lot harder to add 10 categorical exc1usions at a later stage. It is a lot easier 11 to take them out.

12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You believe certain 13 . categories should be excluded at this stage? Is that the point 14 you are making?

15 MR *. KENNEKE: There was some serious doubt, I think, 16 in some people's.minds. State* agreements, the amendments, 17 the safeguards, transportation -- in light of other things you 18 have on your agenda, you might wish to decide 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You would exclude them now?

20. MR. KENNEKE: I think that is the proposal. And, 21 as Commissioner Ahearne says, you can go back and drop the 22 exclusions, depending on adverse comment.

- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:

MR. KENNEKE: Right.

I So that is your proposal?

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY,: Marty I s proposal is to drop them i

45

.43 2 before we put them out for comment.

MR. KENNEKE: Marty's point is that you propose 3 them and if somebody seriously objects,-you can drop your 4 exclusions.

5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I understand that.

6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: If you agree.

7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But your point was 8 MR. KENNEKE: You would want to think about it 9 first.

10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Your point is suggesting 11 they be dropped now? That's the way I read the paper.

- 12 13 14 MR. KENNEKE: Dropping thqse exclusions or added?

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Drop.

MR. KENNEKE: Dropped. Right.

15 MR. MALSCH: The difficulty with dropping them is, 16 you have got to get comment on putting them back in. So you 17 can always drop them, but if you want to add one, you have l8 to go through another -round of public comment.

19 In the meantime, the .staff is going to have to do 20 appraisals and devote the resources.

21 You know, we tried to be careful and it was really 22 a struggle to come up with these categories. I think what we

- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 have got is _,something that is reasonable. Some of them are going*to be controversial, and maybe the Commission on reevaluation might not-want some of them. But our thought was,

46 I

I rnm44 l let's at least put them out for comment and find out what happe~s.

2 i MR. KENNEKE: And I think all you have to do is II 3 qualitatively look through the list and make that judgment.

4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Do you two agree or disagree?

5 MR. MALSCH: Disagree.

6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I must say I'm not clear 7 either.

8 MR. KENNEKE: We differ. in the sense that we 9 would suggest that you all look at the qualitative list of 10 categories and decide whether you feel they should be on the 11 list now or not.

1* '1

.L COM.MISSIONER GILINSKY: But, do you have any view?

13 MR. KENNEKE: What I think Marty is saying, rest 14 assured, you can go with the list --

15 MR. MALSCH: Oh, no, I*m not suggesting you shouldn't 16 look at them. I think you ought to look at the categories 17 and see whether you feel comfortable with them.

18 I guess what I am suggesting is you adopt a kind 19 of medium threshold for decision and not refuse to publish a

?

-V "

category just because you have a few reservations about it.

21 .If you are really un6omfortable with a category, I think it 22 is certainly within your authoiity to drop it .

- .23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: As we discuss these categories, can we.refer to page 7.

Any revision in those categories to eliminate some

47 e145 of them is going to have an effect on that 56 manyears, per 2 year.

3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Could you first explain, on 4 the 56, is that what NMSS estimated prior to any of the 5 categorical exclusions, and therefore with the existing 6 categorical exclusions that number is now some lesser number.

7 MR. MALSCH: I think-that is right.

8 Maybe there is someone from NMSS here you could 9 ask. Lee Rauss, I ,think he helped us put together some of 10 these figures .

I' MR. RAUSS: Lee Rauss, Division of Fuel Cycle.

12 The answer is yes, the numbers on page 7 were if 13 all of the categorical exclusions were croS§ed*out.

14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: With them. in; what is the 15 right number?

16 MR. RAUSS: That is still under assessment, 17 particularly with the radioisotope licensing.

18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: This is referred to on page 19 13 where it says we just don't know.

20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But the approximate feel 21 is half of that?

22 MR. RAUSS: I have with me Danny Miller, chief of 23 the radioisotope licensing. Perhaps Danny could help you.

24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Is it half of the 56 or a Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 third, three-quarters? In round numbers.

48

-

• rnrn4 6 2

3 sir?

MR. MILLER: Would you state the question again, COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The question is, we have 4 got on page 7 a question that it would be 56 manyears associated 5 with doing the environmental assessments. And as was pointed 6 out a minute ago, that's assuming there were not categorical 7 exclusions.

8 The question is, with the categorical exclusions 9 that are now in these proposed regulations, what is the number?

10 In just round numbers, is it half of 56?

" 1 I' MR. MILLER: It is a small fraction of that, sir.

1,.,

• ,L I don't have that right at my fingertips.

13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Would you say something like 14 a qu~rter, then?

15 MR. MILLER: I would say it is something about ten 16 less, ten manyears less.

1-7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Less than 56?

18 MR. MILLER: Right.

19 COMMISSIONER AHEAR.~E: So you are saying it would 20 be like 46?

21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: It would be 46 anyway?

22 MR .. MILLER: Yes .

- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25

. COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Then if all the categorical exclusions now in the paper were eliminated, there would be 10 more, so it would be 56.

49

• mm4 7 MR. MILLER: That is counting -- now- I am only

.2 speaking*formaterial licensing for the 50.

3 . COMM~[SSIONER AHEARNE: But -you would expect to have 4 to do about 40 manyears even :With these exclusions?

s . MR. MILLER: That Is' correct, sir.

6. COMMISSIONER -KENNEDY: . So it *should be recalled for 7 the record that we are talking.about 46 manyears~

a Now I have another question for the Executive

.9 Director.

10 How many of those 46 inanyears or 56 manyears, .

l l ._ whichever the number may. turn out to be, are now devoted to 12 that purpose?

13 COMMISSIONER AHE2\.RNE: . Or. are budgeted.

14 MR.*GOSSICK: I'd*have to turn back to Danny Miller.

15 Do you know?

16 MR. MILLER: No.

17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Let me put the question 18 differently.

19 How mu*ch of an increase in manyear expenditure does 20 this represent over our present way of doing business?-

21 MR. MILLER: I'd have to do a* little calculation 22 *there, sir. I would have to-count the number of reviewers I

• 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: . Sort of l'."oughly'?

MR. MILLER: Sort of roughly, I.would say maybe 30

50

.48 manyears.

2 *COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Increase?

3 MR. MILLER: Yes.

4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Are those in. the budget?

5 *. That is prospective budget?

6 MR. MILLER:. Prospective budget, *not* counting 7 doing .any EISs at the moment,* just to do our normal license 8 review.

9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: *How**aboui; th:i.:s

• increase?

10 I think you just said this* would represent about

. 1l

• a 30-manyear increase over** what you --

- 12 13 14 .py MR .*. MILLER: Counting. my present staff, yes.

COM!.vIISSIONER A HEARNE: In the FY '80 budget, or the

'8lbudget, are*those 30 in.there?.

15 MR. MILLER: Yes.

16 COMMISSIONER*KENNEDY: The extra 30?

17

• MR. MILLER: No. . It is just now current staffing.

18

• So we have not included --

19 COMMISSIONER -AHEARNE:

• So FY '80 or 1 81 budget has .

. 20

• not got enibeddedin it the assumption: about these regulations?

21 MR. MILLER: That is correct.

22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: So we are somewhere between

,30 *or :40 .*,people; *short, a not inconsiderable number of' manyears.

24 .I think the record should be very clear on this that whatever Ace-Federal Reporters,* 1nc.

25 decision the Commission makes, and indeed I. think i t should be

51 emm49 noted in the statement of considerations tha:. goes out with 2 this proposed rule, that those additional costs are going to 3 be incurred under the current proposition in this rule in terms 4 of manyear expenditures.

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What does that stem from 6 principally?

7 MR .. MALSCH: You mean which kinds of licenses?

8 COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY: . Yes.

9 Where-are ,the principal increased requirements-that 10 lead to these instruments of manyears that would be required 11 if the rule were adopted?

,,t.. MR. MALSCH: I'm not sure.

• 13 All the ones that I would have thought -- as far 14 as I am aware, we have excluded all the major kinds of

.15 license -- typical kinds of license activities in the 16 categorical exclusions. There can't be that many left.

17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I wonder -- sorry to cut 18 you off there, *but there seems to be a certain amount of 19 uncertainty and confusion on this point. I wonder if we 20 could get it resolved soon by having the persons involved 21 calculate in the calm of their office. I don't think I want 22 to --

- ,23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 MR. GOSSICK: All right.

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That's true.

COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't want them to work

52

• 50 on the.basis of estimates prepared hurriedly .

2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: There are detailed estimates 3 stated here in the paper and they include other categories 4 of activity.

5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But let me ask you, would 6 that affect your decision about publishing the rules for 7 comment?

8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Not at all. Well, I said that 9 I want that included. I want the public to understand when it 10 is commenting on these rules,. the impact the rules have in 11 terms of workload and costs. Because it is the very public 12 that is being asked.to comment on the rules who is going to 13 pay those costs. And they ought to understand that.

14 And they ought to further understand if they don't 15 like the categorical exclusions, that that will represent 16 an increase, a further increase, and therefo~e a further

. 17 cost .

18 If that is what they want to pay for, splendid.

19 But I think they ought to understand that and they should not 20 be under any misapprehensions in this regard.

21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think we ought to 22 develop estimates that we feel are sound.

23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Exactly.

24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And that we are prepared to Acs-Federal Reporters, Inc. :c 25 announce.

53

• rnm51 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Exactly.

2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I am inclined to break at 3 this point.

4 COMMISSIONER AHEAR..T\TE: I have a number of questions 5 still that I. at some point wish to get addressed.

6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I have a number.

7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why don't you state them 8 and let's see where it takes us. But, I would like to -- us 9 to have an opportunity to have lunch. *I .developed that bad 10 habit somewhere along the line.

11 (Laughter)

COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Since all the partiesrere 13 are going to be here, I suspect, physically in the building 14 this afternoon anyway -- isn't that correct that the meeting 15 is this afternoon -- except you?

16 MR. CUNNINGHAM: If requested I'll be here.

17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: All the others are going to 18 be. here anyway. Maybe we could just break now and open the 19 meeting this afternoon with just a continuation for l5 minutes 20 of this one.

21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think we have a budget.

22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: We have a meeting at 1:30 23 with the Executive Branch.

24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I don't have any other Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 *options.

54

- rnm52 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Raise your questions.

2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You don't have to answer 3 , them. I will just give them to you.

4 There i s a comment on.the July 30th date on page 10, 5 and then referenced later. And I really don't -- page 12, 6 rather -- I really don't understand what your July 30th, '79 7 date being embedded in there is for, and I don't really 8 .understand why you retain that date at this stage.

9 The worst case issue. I do have a problem in some 10 sense that I think that in light of the Three Mile Island 11 series of events,the statement that you have under NRC's 12 current risk analysis practices, the consequence of accidents, 13 this likelihood of occurr~nce is remote,* are not given 14 .detailed consideration except in unusual cases.

15 At some point we might want to rethink that kind 16 of phrasing.

17 The relationship between the emergency exemptions 18 of .51.13. And then there is a very broad exemption authority 19 in 51.16. I'm not clear on how those two relate. And it almost 20 seems like one is subsumed in the other, and I am not really 21 sure why they are both sitting there.

22 *You have a statement that our policy would be to

- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 follow .CEQ regulations insofar as: Subpart A doesn't specifically cover areas that are different. And I am not really sure what all of the implications are of that.

55 What are we adding by saying we will follow that 2 other than some legislative procedures.

3 Discussion on the criteria for the EIAs, given 4 the. fact that the universe consists of only three things, I'm 5 not sure what is added by then going down through a list of 6 various things on the EIAs.

7 And I guess a final comment on EIAs, we have in 8 here that we will do EIAs in amendments to rules. We list the 9 . specific sections o.f. the .rules :lo.which these are amendments 10 as part of them. And I am not sure if there is some circular process we should be following.

Do we have to do an EIA on these amendments?

13 I guess that's it.

14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I had one or two.

15 COMMISSIONER AHEAlli'lE: I guess I will write them all 16 down and give them to you.

17 MR. MALSCH: Okay.

i8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I won't have to.

19 The bottom of page 4 of the memorandum, it says 20 though Subpart A does not include certain implementing 21 procedures, since there appears to be no reason not to follow 22 CEQ procedures with respect to legislative proposals, special

23. .NRC implementing regulations are not needed.

24 Does this mean then that despite all our protesta-Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 tions to the contrary, we are saying we are adhering to any

56

- rnm54 CEQ regulations?

2 My understanding has been: that although we may 3 accept their view as a reasonable one from our perspective 4 for those purposes, we have included the language- verbatim 5 from their own proposals in our regulations. This suggests 6 to the contrary. This suggests that we have not included in 7 our regulations -- we simply say we are following the CEQ 8 regulation and that is not consistent with my understanding.

9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: And.that's part of my problem 10 in understanding what it means by when we say that insofar I'

as it is not addressed by Subpart A we will follow the

- 12 13 14 regulations.

MR. MALSCH: On that one we did review all the re.gulations, and the idea was that insofar as we said, 15 insofar as we were incorporating them at that point, that was 16 a voluntary decision on our part and we really intended to I

171 mean the same thing on the bottom of page 4.

18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But my understanding was 19 that when we voluntarily incorporated, we incorporated-them in 20 our regulations. That's what I thought we were saying.

21 MR. MALSCH: Okay.

22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's what I thought all

• *.23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 this time our intention was .

part.

MR. MALSCH: And in fact we did that for the most The general -- the footnote on page 4 and the one that

57 1 emm55 l. Commissioner Ahearne referred to was a catchall, because we 2 had not -- there. were some provisions in here that we just

~- did not repeat .

.4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Why not?

• 5 MR. MALSCH: Just for brevity purposes.

6 It was already getting to be 135 pages long.

7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: How many additional pages 8 would that have meant?

9 MR. MALSCH: Probably about* . another, just a guess, 10 50 pages, perhaps.

, 1 1' COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: 50 pages?

12 MR. MALSCH: Yes.

13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Then my understanding about 14 the character*of these regulations is totally different.

15 Totally different than what I came in here this morning with.

16 So I will have to discuss that further.

17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me ask, do you feel a 18 need for a further meeting on this?

19 CO~USSIONER AHEARNE: I don't need a further 20 meeting. What I will do is write down my questions.

21 Now, *do they go to ELD?

22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would propose that Marty -

23 it involves a certain conflict of interest, but I think it 24 might be simpler if Marty dealt with the Commissioners' Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 offices individually, and also received from the Executive

58 rnm56

.* Director, an* estimate of the resources required to carry 2 out these comply with.these* regulations.and suitably 3 incorporate that in a*statement of considerations.

4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I have one short request.

5 There are three other items in the.OPE memo, and it notes at 6 the end that OGC concurs* in them.

7 If you do I assume .that there .would be modifications 8 in order in the draft reg itself in those.areas.

9 .:oo. yo:u ,waht _to.* inc::qrpqrate those?

10 Well, beyond categorical exclusions, NEPA review, 11 official *public involvement and.distribution.

12 MR. KENNEKE: *

• There it was a question of choices, 13 as I recall, whic~;ones~you preferred.

14 * 'MR~ MALSCH.: When I read the OPE account I didn't 15 feel strong one way or the other*about some of those comments.

16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: What specifically are these 17 ', now that you are referring to, .Peter?

18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD*: Well, page 2 and 3 of the OPE 19 memo, and then a notation at t.he end that OGC ,concurs in it.

20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Is that you or somebody else?

21 (Laughter.)

22 MR. MALSCH: I asked someone who was not involved,

. ,,23, _s~pa,rate .from me,.to review them on behalf. of OGC, because I

• 24 , thought.it would . be kind of wrong for me to jump from one offic Ace-Federal Reporters,- Inc.

• * *, 25 :to the other.

59

• rnmS 7 COMMISSIONER AHEAR..'l',rn: But what changes would* be 2 made*as*the result of the --

3 MR. KENNEKE:*we would recommend that a staff person 4 .be*the NEPA reviewer, and that you might want to consider 5

• involving*. the public at an earlier time than the rules seem 6 to suggest. And we note that CEQ 7

COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: When_you say a staff person -

8 MR.* KENNEKE: Well, there is .an alternative where 9

someone*at H Street-,-

10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: By staff you mean --

11 MR. KENNEKE: _ EDO staff.

12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I thought s*imilarly that 13 was essentially where_ this other paper was .coming out.** So 14 that.is not~ difference.-

• 15 But on the public involvement, what change were you 16 recommending?

17 MR~ KENNEKE: I don't think we are recommending a 18 . change other than to suggest that you would want to consider 19  :*!Whether or not this was early enough. a time to involve -the 20 public.

21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I guess my question is, 22 I thought Peter was saying in~orporate. And I am not sure

.,.2.3 .what*it is your are incorporating .

24 MR. KENNEKE: The memo refers to the*comments Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 from .the earlier part of the paper,.rather than the lesser

60 I- .58 comments, the categorical exclusions at that time, rather than 2 these others which are less significant.

3 COMMISSIONER AHEAR..~E: I am just having ~ifficulty 4 coming to grips.with what it was that was going to be 5 incorporated.

6 MR. KENNEKE: I think we are basically talking about 7 these categorical exclusions.

8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What are you talking about I.-

9 you are also talking about a -di-,ffe.rence -between the CEQ regs

- 10 and our regs on distribution. And you are suggesting an 11' accelerated effective date.

- 12 13 14 MR. KENNEKE: Right.

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:

leading to ,an earlier effective date.

Or an accelerated rulemaking 15 MR. KENNEKE: I must say I hsve to go back and read 16 that memo again.

17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I wonder if these could be 18 discussed individually with Commissioners' offices, and possibl 19 we will be able to handle this by affirmation if the changes 20 caribe agreed upon.

21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But, what would be 22 incorporated: I would appreciate seeing the changes that are

being --

24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Certaihly.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I also would like a much

61

.59 2 fuller explanation of this 50 page exercise. Thct:represents something like 40 percent, and that is a pretty high number.

3 It is my understanding, certainly from what I had 4 read -- a misunderstanding, I recognize -- that we were 5 talking about a paragraph or two that was being excepted, 6

and even there I thought that was odd because that was incon-7 sistent with our basic posture.

8 Now I find we are talking about 40 pages, or 40 9 percent, rather.

10 MR. MALSCH: I would say it is only 40 pages, i1 because the regulations of CEQ are very verbose in places.

12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, whatever the reasons.

13 Thank you very much.

14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:*: I would like to know what 15 it would take to put them.in ours, where they ought to be.

16 MR. MALSCH: Okay.

17 (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearing in 18 the above-entitled matter was adjourned.)

19

+ + +

2C 21 22 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25