ML22230A156
| ML22230A156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/04/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780504 | |
| Download: ML22230A156 (1) | |
Text
RETURN TO SECRETARIAT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC.111EETING DISCUSSION OF GESMO STATEMENT OF REASONS Place - Washington, D. C.
Date -
Thursday, 4 May 1978 Pages l 61 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NAT:ONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY Telephone:
(20'.2 ) 3.47-3700
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission he1d on May 4, 1978
. in the Com~ission 1 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 revie\\*1ed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is* intended-solely for gener~l informational purpose5.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or infornal record of decision of"the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in
- this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the r2sul t of or addressed to any statement or ai*g:trnent contained he*rein, except as the Commission may-authorize.
CR7341 HEER:mp mask 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 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC.MEETING DISCUSSION OF GESMO STATEMENT OF REASONS Room 1130 1717 H Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
Thursday, 4 May 1978 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 4:30 p.m.
BEFORE:
DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner RICHARDT. KENNEDY, Commissioner PRESENT:
SAMUEL CHILK, Secretary J. KELLEY, Acting Legal Counsel R. MALLORY K. PEDERSEN D. RATHBUN 1
341. 05.2
_ jwb 2
3 2
P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we could gather again, the next subJect is the statement of reasons on GESMO which has 4
cycled through a number of draft stages, and which we go to 5
court in_Philadelphia on Monday morning on.
To say that there 6
is a time press hardly makes the point strong enough.
7 There continue to be all through the basic thrusts 8
of the various_ versions pretty much the same.
There continue 9
to be some wording changes, shades of emphasis which were at JO the beginning of April, instead_ o.f right up against the due Jl date for the document, that might be thrashed out, or maybe 12 13 they wouldnJt, but at least there would be a fair chance.
But at_this date, I think that the whole document, 14 that there are still enough di+/-ferences so it is not practical 15 for them to attempt to go entirely to a collegial document 16 at this stage and sti 11 have something to file on Monday.
17 What I am proposing to do, and to discuss briefly 18 with my colleagues, is to attempt_this afternoon in about an 19 hour2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br /> to scan through the language in the several drafts in the 20 21 22 23 2-4 25 initial section, running up to about page 6, -and then starting again at about page 18 or 20 and running on through to the end to see if we can agree the three of us --- and accept a collegial version of that beginning and ending material.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The pages run from?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The front end is about I through
i34l. 05.3 jwb 3
6, the back end starts either on page 18 or on page 20 9 2
depending Dn our negotiation when we get there.
It may be 3
that 18 and 19 will have to go in thB center.
4 Now what that does is to leave the center of the 5
thing out, and in fact the center of the thing is pretty much 6
the reason for the document.
It states the reasons for the 7
Commission having made the decision that it made on GESMO.
We 8
will supply that center section on an individual_ b,asis, and 9
if things happen to work as I would propose and hope, we would JO have a collegial document which would come to that section and
.11 have a title -- a short paragraph which would say, simply, 12 that:
Individual views of the Commi.ssioners --- in that 13 section of the paper --- are attached; and that a co.llegial 14 position has not been possible of achievement.
15 And.the individual sets of writeups, then, of those 16 reasons by each of. the Commissioners would be attached to the 17 document.
And as I say, if we were able in fact to agree on 18 the front end and the back end and the transition paragraph, 19 then.we indeed could file on behalf of the Commission a paper 20 with the.Philadelphia court on Monday, presumably, providing 21 the Off ice of the General Counsel and the typing and 22 reproduction forces and editorial £orces are able to work 23 24 through this lovely spring weekend.
MR. KELLEY:
We will wheel our big guns into 25 position..
341.05.4
. jwb 2
3 4
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Nobody"s going to have to work through the weekend to type a 38-page document.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have observed stai'f papers for 4
many years.
There always seems to be an awful lot to do, even 5
though it seems as though there are just a few mechanical 6
details.
7 Anyway, the job be.fore us this afternoon, then, if 8
you.,,re willing to move along. this path, is to start at the 9
front end and see if we can agrse on that language, and move 10 to the back end and see if we can agree on that language, and JJ then see where we are.
12 No.w, I would hope we could move very rapidly, and 13
- I would be perfectly willing to look at the center, if we can.
14 I am.not optimistic about that being possible.
1_5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I agree that if we canJt 16 agree on the center material, then we should have some such 17 proposal as you sug:;;,ested.
It doesn"'t seem to me that the 18 two drafts are 1ar enough apart on the center to make a lot of 19 sense for us to submit two versions if we can avoid it.
I 20 think we should try to pull them together.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Whose drafts are we talking 22 about?
I_,,ve g.ot so many different kinds of papers here.
I 23 went through three drafts, in detail, the last of which I 24 think was dated about April 26th -
on three different 25 occasions, from March 3rd or some such, till about April 26th,
34 l.05. 5 jwb 2
3 4
5 three extensive drafts, complete in all respects through them in great detail.
5 and.went My understanding of the circumstances is simply that 7 just last Monday as the paper was being put in final form -- it was in final typing -- a vast number of proposed 6
changes began arriving, and some o~ them just arrived in my 7
office yesterday.
8 I have had time to scan some of them, and not 9
really think a lot of them through, but I find things that I 10 think are factually incorrect in some of the changes, and I JJ don't know -- 1-'ve got changes from two different offices, at 12 least.
And so I don-"t know.what I-'m dealing with.
13 14 15 16 17 We need to sort of start somewhere, and that would be helpful.
For example, I have one here.
This is on page 4.
What I*'m reading, it says:
"Moreover, a decision by the United States t-0 proceed with commercial plutonium recycled domestically would undermine U.S. efforts to restrain 18 premature entry or int.er.national r.esort to plutonium."
19 Well, this has been changed to read:
11 *** undermine 20 U.S. ef~orts to halt further commitment to plutonium use 21 internationally."
22 Now the Pr.esident never intended that.
That is an 23 incorrect statement.
That is not national policy -- at least, 24 if the President of the United States is any longer expressing 25 national policy -- whatever that is.
I can"t agree with that.
41.05.6 Jwb 2
3 4
5 6
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The initials JtVG" at the bottom are a dead giv.eaway.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The copy I have is so scratched-up that I did not even notice them.
6 Anyway, having that interpretation, that is at 7
least some clari~ication, but it makes no difference. It is 8
just factually incorrect.
It do.es not state the nationa 1 9
policy, and I donJt propose in_this document to in any way 10 associate myself with a restatement of national policy until Jl the President undertakes it.
12 1.3 14 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me pick up on one earli.er point.
I donJt know whether this thing was going into.1, f ina 1 typing" or not Monday.
If it was, somebody.was being optimistic, because r_think my office had made it clear 16 that it would have comments.
And as of Monday, those comments 17 had not been furnished.
18 So if you were told that the thing was in final 19 typing -
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I.was told this.
I believe 21 the rational view of the General Counsel~s office was that we 22 were under an injunction from the court to deliver this, and 23 they were. doing their best, having been working at it since 24 Decembe.r 23rd when we made our decision.
They had been 25 actually circulating the thing since March 3rd, and had on
341. 05. 7 jwb 2
3 4
5 7
three different occasions, circulated completely new, fresh drafts on.. which comments and notes from all offices, as I understand it, had been gathered.
COMMI.SSIONER BRADFORD:
Not mine.
COMMI.SSI ONER KENNEDY:
Anyway, the factual 6
situation is.:
Here we are.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I.think the most effective tack 8
would really be to start with the front end and see the 9
progress we make.
I don.,t mind tackling the middle, but I 10
.would like to get the front end and the back end together so J l 12 13 at least weJve got a basis to move forward on.
IJm going to recommend we work on the one that you marked up.
JJve got a markup draft from Vic, and keep it 14 handy, and turn it a page at a time.
LetJs see how fast we 15 can churn.this out.
16 How about hanging with "concerning," Peter?
Because 17 we did not terminate all of them.
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Fine.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Page 2, I think the use is fine.
20
~More than a decade" is factually accurate, and "before the 21 Commission and its predec.essor, the AEC. 11 Are you keeping up 22
,with me?
23 24 25 page.
MR. MALLORY.:
Yes, there"s a line further up on the CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
"This memorandum amplifies" --- I
341. 05. 8 jwb 2
3 8
think it 11provides the reasons," rather than "amplifies" because otherwise, we would not be in such agony over.this thing.
4
- "Exxon filed an applicktion to construct at Oak 5
Ridge onJJ the date -
if somebody will supply a date -
Is 6
that correct, by the way?
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What I -really was concerned 8
about there was just to remind myself to find out what the 9
Bxact status of that.thing was.
JO MR. MAll.ORY:
It is worded the.way it is typed JI because, as I-understand it, they are not applying for a
- ~
12 license to construct a reprocessing plant; they1 re seeking 13 Permission of a lesser sort.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is there Jlpermission of a 15 lesser sor+/-~ that would let them do it?
16 MR. MALLORY:
As I understand it, fuel cycle 17 facilities normally do not receive construction permits.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have a suggestion.
This would 19 undoubtedly bs a fascinating matter to know about, but if we 20 laft it "permission," that would at least cover --
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And it is "currently 22 seeking"?
That ~s the question that I think you had started 23
.with, Peter.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD.:
It is "currently seeking 25 permission"?
341. 05. 9 jwb 2
3 4
9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And it is 11stLll before us"?
MR. MALLORY:
It is stLll pending, yes.
I don't think they have withdrawn it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
At least as of the date of the 5
GESMD decision.
6 7
8 9
MR. KELLEY:
They are to go to court, arenJt they?
MR. MALLORY:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Oh, they are suing us?
Onward.
On page 3, I will vote for "evaluated" JO instead of "covered" and I would not mind having "bifurcated" 01 taken out.
It al~ays pulls me up a little short, even though 12 it may be accurate.
13 Page 4, more changes.
Now thisrone is retyped in 14 comparative form from the April 26th thing.
LetJs see.
The 15 proposed change is ~congress. and other parts of the Federal 16 Government, members of the public, and experts in national 17 security feel*" -- it must have to be -
"have continued.*"
18 19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That would b_e fine.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: *-- "to expre..ss concerns relating 20 to the nuclear weapons proliferation risks in plutonium 21 recycling technology."
And if I were to accept that wording, 22 I would need to put in "as it is presently conceived," since 23 in fact we are l-0oking at other ways that may make it be~ter.
2-4 So for myself, I would be glad to have the sentence 25 changed, but put in "have continued."
34 l. 05. l 0
_ jwb 2
3 10 MR. MALLORY.:
I think the phrase II as it is presently conceived" goes better with the next paragraph, or the next sentence which talks about using plutonium in 4
.explosives.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Now, wait.
That is a 6
different point than the one the Chairman is making.
The 7
Chairman is right; it really belongs to the previous.
You 8
see, the concern is over a particular_ technology that is now 9
employed.
That is the point he is making.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Leave it with the previous JI sentence.
All right, Rick?
12 "The concern is basically that the international 13 spread creates risks"; okay?
14 COMM! SSI0NER BRADFORD.:
I think that is supposed to l 5 he - a r is k*u
- 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
ncreates a risk".
I donJt 17 have any dif+/-iculty with that wording; I like it better.
18 nMoreover, a decision by the United States to 19 proceed with commercial plutonium recycled domestically would 20 undermine U.S. efforts to restrain" -- and I really need 21
- "prematun~."
22 23 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I need npremature" also.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
By all means.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
u1nternational reserve 25 to plutonium.n Anything else on that page?
341.05.JI j.wb 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
11 CO MMI SSI ONER BRADFORD:
Victor-'s language, you
+/- e.e l 9 is i nc o rre ct ?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is inconsistent with.what the President and all his people in the field have said publicly and privately to people in all contracts.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is all on that page.
COMM! SSIONER KENNEDY:
Somebody wrote in down here in the middle, toward the end of the next paragraph, "by the 9
board.M It seemed to me that is right, that it would be a 10 good addition, I think.
It would be definitely "postponed by J I 12 13 14 15 the board," just as a clarification.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That was before my time.
Okay, the last page of_this section.
CO.MM! SSIONER KENNEDY.:
What does it say at the end of page 6?
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
"*** of which an elaboration 17 _ fo-1lows. 11 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We have already decided 19 that 9 depending upon the outcome of further discussions, that 20 that paragraph is going to be rewritten, anyway.
I am 21 perfectly wi-1ling to go back to the reasons.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I couldn-'t read it..
Either 23 way, it doesn.,t make any di.fference to me.
2-4 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It just says, *11 on which an elaboration follows.*"
But since this is the point at which,
34 l. 05. 12
. Jwb 2
3 12 unless lightning strikes, we"re going to go into individual views, why there will have to be a transition paragraph, and IJve talked to Rich, and I think we 1 ve got enough discussion 4
here so that the transcript wiJ.l.we.11 show the nature of the 5
thought that that paragraph ought to include.
6 In fact, it wouldn~t hurt if somebody tried to 7
dra.ft something, because I would like to come away from this 8
tabLe, if possible, with the language.
9 Now, could we flip to page 18?
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would.prefer to flip to JJ
, page 20.
)3 14 15 16 17 18
)9 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The one that I have, 18 and 19 is almost nothing left.
COMMI.SSIONER BRADFORD:
There-'s not much left on 20, either, but we can negotiate, probably.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let-'s see.
There is the argument that we talked about briefly earlier ;n the day that here in this section enumerating the arguments that favor continuation is the first place that we note that commentators have said that plutonium is an energy source and ~e need it, and we think it should be continued.
COMM! SSIONER KENNEDY:
I think it is right.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I. would like to retain the*
thrust --.fo.r myself, I. would 1 ike to retain the thrust of the earlier text.
34 J.05. 13 jwb
- 5 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 J I 12 I
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have no dLfficulty with retaining the thrust of the earlier text; I concur with the substance, with the exception of the one sentence which I circ.led in. the middle, and the thought that 11 some commentators have talked about the energy shortage."
Everything else on it has been said preYiously._ If there seems to be some value in repeating those thoughts in the context of the nationJs energy shortage, and the reliance of the commentors thereon, I don*'t
\\
have any difficulty, in principle, with that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would like to go back to it.
Now letJs talk a minute about sort of ignoring the big *11 Xs.u and look at the Jl_f inders. 11 13 COMMI.SSIONER KENNEDY:
Do you mean the li.ttle 14..
notes?
The other notes look to me to be okay.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The other notes, I think, are 1rom an earliBr draft.
CR 7341 HEER t-6 mte 1 14 I
.MR. MALLORY:
Most of them are from the April 26th 2
draft.
The only ones that are not are within the circle two-3 thirds of the way down the page.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, why don't we look in the 5
circle and see what it says?
In the implementation, there is 6
concern about the economic ~spects.
It would be fewer words.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But it is a very different 8
context.
"Does not justify" is a very hard statement, whereas 9
"doesn't provide substantial grounds" is c_ruite different, I 10 think.
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Can you go back and stand '.'sub-12 stantial ground"?
13 COMMISSIONER KF.NNEDY:
I would be prepared to say it 14 "does*.not. pr0vide substantial," instead of "would not appear 15 to," or "in our judgment does not provide substantial grounds."
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
"Does not provide substan-17 tial grounds" is fine with me.
18 CHJI_IRMAN HENDRIE: "At this period of time, it does 19 not provide substantial grounds."
Okay.
Can I come up to the 20 top and come down the page, anc'l. attempt to check off the other 21 elements?
22 COM..MISSIONER BRADFORD:
I can only note that Victor's 23 draft would have deleted even one sentence that I would have 24 saved, and I don't know why.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well-, since I'm running in the
rote 2 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
15 other direction at the moment, I'm not enthused about the thought for a heading.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I will tell you why I did that.
I was trying to keep it parallel with the next section, in which I think the continuation is legally required.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think that is fine.
CHAIRMtrn HENDRIE:
Let us make that change.
"Argu-ments favoring continuation as a policy matter." Let's see, 9
the first sentence, I think you needed to sort of start -- I 10 would propose to retain it.
11 12 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You mean the first sentence?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, Just to get things started.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There is nothing on that 14 page that I found to be wrong or inaccurate.
My problem is, 15 it seemed to me to be some measure -- it is a little awkwardly 16 stated.
17 18 COJJl'l-USSIONER KENNEDY:
I would be for retaining it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would be inclined that way, 19 because there is this section in here that I would like to re-20 tain that thought, and in the rest of the context that seems to 21 go along.
22 Now, "acutely."
23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If you don't say "acutely" it 24 is sort of a trite statement, I think.
Normally, I would say Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 let's drop "acutely."
But here, given the nature of the
mte 3 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 16 sentence, if you don't say it, I think you ought to drop the sent.ence, because it just looks so -- of course we are aware.
It was trying to say we understand this is a really big problem our electrical energy needs.
Maybe we could rephrase the sen-tence or rewrite the whole sentence.
CHAIR!-'T.AN HENDRIE:
I would be glad to keep "acutely.'
COMMISSIONER BFADFORD:
Somewhere on that page, I think we would do well to just put in a r',previously noted," so we don't given anyone the impression that we're really saying anything new.
But I will leave that to someone else to put in.
CHAIRl1/2AN HENDRIF:
Yes, will you put in, "as pre-viously noted."
MR. MALLORY:
After the word "however"?
COMM.ISSI ONER BRADFORD:
Well, however it can be done gracefully.
Cill'_IRMAN HENDRIE:
And the April 26th language would go, I guess, "However," and then, "as previously noted."
COMi~ISSIONER KENNEDY:
I like the way Peter has done it, or whoever has done it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think this was the editing on the April 26th draft by the assistant.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It looks pretty good to me.
I like that.
I think it is fine.
CHAifil'T.AN HENDRIE:
That would allow us to flip the page.
mte 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 17 COM.l\\1ISSIONER KENNEDY:
Then we are putting in "finall ly submitting a progress"?
We are putting that back in?
I would.
CHAIR'l\\ffi.N HENDRIE:
It again, was part of things.
CO.MJ-1ISSIONER BRADFORD:
My only comment on that was that we could put it in.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIF.:
Okay.
These changes, I believe -
MR. MJI_LLORY:
All of those were in the April 26th draft except the last one.
CO.MM.ISSIONER BRADFORD:
I want to qo to war on the word "utilized."
they are.
COM.MISSIONER KENNEDY:
I will join you in that.
CHAIRMAN HFNnRIE:
Otherwise, the changes stand as CO~.MISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aqain, a Gilinsky change that I'~ not sure I can read.
COM.MISSIONER KENNEDY:
Where is this?
COM..111:ISS I ONER BRADFO:R.D:
On page 21.
But you have to use the Gilinsky draft, plus whatever it is you wrote with invisible ink.
"The substantial revision would be required to proceed as we continue now would involve a much more substan-tial waste of effort."
COM.MISSIONER KENNEDY: "The substantial revisions which would be required" -- is that "now"?
No, "required if the proceedings were continued now would involve a much more
mte 5 18 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 substantial waste of effort."
}'A rnuch more substantial waste of effort than the effort than the effort we are already wasting"?
What does that mean?
Substantially more of a waste than what?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Again, we have that diffi-culty.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Presumably there is already, and inevitably will be some _al'1.ount of waste.
People were well into GESMO under the ground rules as it stood.
If we never go that way again, why, that is all something that we could have done without, I suppose.
And if we do go that way again, not all of it will be retrievable.
All people are saying here is --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Isn't that what the sentence said before?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
I don't see any difference.
It is just two ways of saying the same thing.
Do you see any difference?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't.
C:HlURMAN HENDRIE:
Could we stay with it as it is, simply because it is harder to read this one?
- 22.
"It is not the Commission's intent to make a proceeding of this sort into a general study on the licensing procedure area."
That's fine with me.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's all right.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It may be a trifle more precise.
mte 6 19 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 COMMISSIONER BR..A.DFORD:
Vic would delete the bottom two sentences there.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would be willing to delete it. It was trying to put the thing away.
CHAIRMP.~N HENDRIE:
I thought it was a rather nice closure on that.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It was trying to encapsulize what the Eizenstat letter was telling us.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The point is well taken.
There may be some argument with the phraseology, but to the extent that the commentators are arguing that the Presicl.ent has misassessed the role of GESMO, it seems to me to be a point where we're saying --
COMJl1ISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think it's okay.
CH.JIIP.MAN HENDRIE:
I would hope to keep it.
COMMISSIONER BRP>_DFORD:
I would, too.
It may be possible to phrase it more artfully.
CHAIIDAAN HENDRIE:
The note here, the note that goes with this recommendation, is that the President doesn't care about usefulness, but his concerns are in other directions and they don't belong in this context.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Some of the commenters have made the point --
CHAIRJVlAN HENDRIE:
I would vote to keep it in if tha, is all right.
mte 7 20 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 COiv'1.MISSIONER KEN'NEDY:
All we' re doing is saying they are wrong.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me try a modification of that.
Supposing it said, "whether GESMO's potential useful-ness outweighs" -- no, I 'rn. just getting myself more tangled up.
MR..r-mLLORY:
We could say, "to assess whether GESMO would be more useful than harmful."
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would prefer that.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Why don't we just say, "Fi-nally, as to the view of some commenters that GESMO indeed might be useful to the President's domestic and interna~ional initiatives, we would only note that the President has judged that it would not."
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is fine.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I thin}r: that deals with the corn-ment here.
Would you repeat that, Rich?
MR..MALLORY:
"Finally, as to the view of some com-menters that GESMO would be useful to the President's domestic and international initiatives, we would only note that he has indicated it would not."
MR. PEDERSON:
"GESMO" is used in an odd way there.
Wouldn't it be "as to whether continuation of the GESMO pro--
eedings," because he in fact said the safeguards supplement should be published.
It is really the proceedings.
mte 8 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 CO.MMISSIONER KE!:JNFDY:
Exactly.
Just make that minor fix.
And that makes the point, it seems to me.
CO:M.MISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
From there, I want to go to page 24.
CO:MMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I might say here, I liked it the way it was.
CHAIRl\\~~rn HENDRIE:'
- Well, if you can stand the extra words.
If there is an inclination to leave it COMMISSI1ONER KENNEDY:
The first one I think is fine and is somewhat more elegant.
The deletion of the second, however;--
CHAIR:MAN HENDRIE:
Make the first change, "particu-larly applicable when foreign policy considerations involving,"
etcetera.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Now, the deletion of the second one takes us, really, back into what you are seeking to avoid in the middle pages.
I don't have any probiliem with that sentence the first or second or third times.
I think this 20 would be about the same, and what I have tried to do back in 21 the middle was*to state the substantial differences clearly and 22 precisely once, and then move on.
And so I took it out of here 23 not as any reflection of the feelings that there wasn't a sub-24 stantial point to be made, but that this had been made in that
- Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 middle section.
mte 9 22 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 CHlURMAN HENDRIE:
If we end up with separate views on the middle section, can you stand to have it in here?
COM.MISSIONER B:RJ'I_DFORD:
If we end up with identical views on the middle section, I think I could stand to have it here.
CHAIRMltN HENDRIE:
Well, I was thinking in particu-lar, since the -- I'm afraid we may not be able to collegi~lly make the central argument.
COM.MISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me try to express the concern that I have.
I assume that we are more or less in agreement that we are limited in the number of times we need to meet substantial differences.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is certainly negotiable.
COMMISSIONER BRl\\DFORD:
But there is another point, that I was also after editorial in the middle section and not so much here, which is that the substantial deference is, of course, circumscribed by what
-we do and what the law requires of us.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You had a phrase that you used there.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The "substantial deference" does require us to go to the point of going against what we think. the statute should require.
Now, that second point and the way in which it would be appropriately inserted may be a source of real difficulty.
That point is not, as far as I'm
mte 10 23 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Fede:ral Reporters, Inc.
25 concerned, at issue here.
And if you will be more comfortable repeating "substantial deference," fine, I could follow that in the interest of harmony.
But I would not want to decide that outside of the context of our looking again at the middle section.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I assume if we take a crack at the center section, we will find out whether or not it can be included.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Can you paper clip this one?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We can paper clip it..
Does anybody feel strongly about "probably"?
We can strike it.
The next place that we come to, which is not one of those April 22nd assistant's amendments --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
25 is okay.
CHAIRJ'.'.TAN HENDRIE:
Go through 'til you hit 29, I believe.
COM.MISSIONER BRADFORD:
I doctored a footnote on
- 27.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I like that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What did it mean before and what does it mean now?
COM.MISSIONER BRADFORD:
I took out both ends of the double negative.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
This Commission goes for forthrig t
rote 11 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 24 language.
Take out the double negative.
COM.. MISSIONER KFNNEDY:
- 28.
Is that COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is not true on Victor's draft.
I guess Victor feels we have mis-cited the Harvey Radio Laboratories case.
But I've never read it, so I can't speak to that.
CHAIRMArT HENDRIE:
I'm going to be unable to be very much help there.
COM1'-USSIONER KENNEDY:
I would defer to counsel.
I haven't read Harvey Radio Laboratories either.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Maybe the onlv point to be made there is that somebody should check and find out what the point is.
MR. ~ALLORY:
Yes, we are.
Perhaps he indicated he wasn't sure what the sentence meant, and I think someone else asked that once.
The jist of it is that people who apply for a license before a freeze, and after the freeze under new policies they might not get their licenses, even though they applied before the freeze, under* policies where they would have gotten the license.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I did not have any problems with that.
Vic was going to strike a number of things down in there.
And I have some problem taking all of that stuff out.
I'm going to have to try to stop and try to understand what it means with an~ without.
mte 12 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 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
25 This is another point that I was talking about a morn.ent ago.
I think Vic and I have the same problem.
I came at it by inserting language which, to some extent, qualifies the thought.
Vic came at it by striking the thought entirely.
COl'lflUSSIONER KENNEDY:
I have no objection to inserting your sentence.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But you don't want to strike the whole thing?
COM.MISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would not strike it.
CHl\\IRMAN HE!'JDRIT::
I think it helpful overall, a good deal more helpful than just striking everything out there.
Now, we have to strike an "as shown above."
There's no prob:J_em there, I don't think.
P.ich, strike "as shown above" ana. put in Peter's sentence shown on page 29.
Flipping merrily onward, I don't find anything con-tentious all the way to page 36.
"The order also stated that the Commission, Commissioner Gilinsky dissenting.
seems to be a clear statement of fact.
II That COW.i[ISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is a thought that I put in in order to preserve his position.
But I notice he has
\\
taken it out.
cown.ISSIONER KENNEDY:
He dic'l.n 't dissent, as a mat-ter of fact.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
He did on that proposition.
mte 13 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
. Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 26 MR..M.ALLO RY :
He didn't register a dissent.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The December statement ihdi-cates that Commissioner Kennedy would have used the word "pre-ferred" and Commissioner Gilinsky regards the inclusion of the Barnwell part as unnecessary.
COMMISSIONER KF.NNF.DY:
But that is not a dissent.
I understand what you are trying to do.
Why can't somebody write a tiny footnote that the order also stated that the Com-missioner reserved a decision, and so on, Commissioner Gilinsky, in this regard?
COM.l\\1ISSIONER BRADFORD:
His note would seem to sug-gest that you quote from a letter to the staff.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
He wrote a letter to the staff, or was it the secretary's letter?
MR. MALLORY:
It would seem proper to auote the order.
cm-'IMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would think we would quote the order.
MR. 1'1ALLORY:
A footnote at the end of tne quotation would be appropriate.
COM.MISSIONER BR.n..DFORD:
A footnote at the end of the quotation?
MR. MALLORY:
A footnote at the end of the quotation in the text.
The footnote would be a quotation from the order, saying Commissioner Gilinsky, and whatever the order said.
mte 14 27 2
3 4
5 6
I 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's all right with me.
Obviously, it is not up to me to indicate satisfaction or dis-satisfaction with that arrangement.
There is a thought that Victor has pursued through pages 36 and 37, having to do with licensing by the State of South Carolina.
I don't know how to relate to that, mainly because I can't read it.
MR. MALLO:P.Y:
I believe this is the contract licens-ing that is turnec over to the states.
They don't license reactors, for example.
MR. PEDERSON:
Nor fuel cycle procedures.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it is just flat wrong.
Okay, we have agreed on a deal, by quoting the order language which reflects that which, presumably, is a fair state ment of that.
And otherwise, these last pages don't have any-thing else on them, at least in your markup, and Vic's stu£f getting into whether the state could do anything, I think it is factually incorrect on the law.
MR. MALLORY:
On page 37 we should delete the last paragraph.
CHAIP.MAN HENDRIF':
We should delete the last paragraph since we did it se?arately this morning, right?
MR. MALLORY:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HFNDRIE:
Okay.
Now, on page 38, the last one.
It says, "The
mte 15 28 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 separate views of Cormnissioner Kennedy appear below."
At the moment, it appears we may have a whole lot of separate views, and I wonder.
MR. I-JIALLORY:
Or we could say, "Reasons are stated above" if we have separate statements.
I f
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, please fix that if we end up separately.
COMMISSIONER KF.NNEDY:
My separate views go to some-thing entirely apart from all of this, and I was only expressin why I would have preferred.
I joined in the opinion, but would have preferred to have used other language.
And I just wanted to express why.
I will let you all technically figure out how to do that.
They are totally apart from the other.
CH~.IRMAN HENDRIE:
We will be ref erring up in that transition paragraph at the end of page 6 to our separate views on reasons.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's right.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we could find scrr.2 way here to characterize the remarks.
COMMISSIONER KEN!'TEDY:
Additional views or some-thing of Commissioner Kennedy concerning.
You all can figure out how to handle it.
CHAIRMJ-i_N HENDRIE:
How would you characterize the concern, to give him some guidance?
MR. MALLORY:
We will make use of the word "terrninat"
mte 16 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 29 rather than "deferred."
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That would be, I think, a help.
MR. KELLEY:
That seems to me it probably fits with this little bridge, couple of sentences, that I have drawn up.
CHAIRMAN HFNDRIE:
You would take it up there?
MR. KELLEY:
I think so, because you go along with facts and procedure.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You see, I want -- initially, originally, I was joined -- well, I am still joining in the unanimous decision of the Commission.
Well, it turns out now that we have differing views as to why we reached the conclu-*
- sions we all join in.
And that is what you are talking about.
Apart from that, if I had had my druthers, I would have used a different word to characterize our decision.
Rathe than have,.':qsed the word "terminate," I would have "deferred" or something like that.
But that is a different question alto-gether.
MR. KELLEY:
But I think maybe you can jim this transition paragraph to encompass that.
CHAIRlv'f.AN HENDRIE:
His thought was --
COM.IvlISSIONER KENNEDY:
But I want to put that.
I don't want that to get mixed up with all of this stuff, because it is out of place, you see.
MR.. PEDERSON:
How lengthy would your views likely
mte 17 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 be on that point?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
How what?
MR. PEDERSON:
How lengthy?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
A couple of pages.
MR. PEDERSON:
All right.
30 CHAifil1AN HENDRIE:
Well, I think it would be helpful if they were --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You could put "supplemental views" or something.
CHlURMAN HENDRIE:
It would be helpful if they were characterized so, as people looked at the attachment, you could see, well, this is a separate view on this subject, and this is a separate view on that subject.
And whether it ought to be mentioned here or mentioned up in the other place, I don't know.
MR. KELLEY:
It is perfectly common for the Supreme Court splitting all over the lot, and they will have Justice Black, with whom Justice Harlan joins, says as follows, and they will go on for five pages.
And then they'll have a piece that says, Justice Harlan also, all by himself, also says this.
~..nd that is perfectly routine.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I will leave how to do it to you.
The language is all written since January 3rd.
We're going to have to go back and see if it is still readable.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Peter had one paper clip left in
rote 18 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 31 on 24.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The paper clip is only rele-vant if we undertake an effort to reach an accord on the rest.
I am in a considerable quandary as to what I would write to go with the April 26th version on pages 7 through 20.
But I don't have any very wir1.e degree of difference with the views expresse in them.
But I think it would be very unusual to file a con-:
currence.
But there are a couple of areas in there where there certainly is a difference in emphasis.
So that what we really would be coming down to would be a statement to the effect that -- in fact, I guess Victor would disagree, because he goes further than I do-on those points.
And he would state the emph -
ses differently.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do you want to take a crack at that center section?
I think if you can stand a little while longer, I think it is worth taking a look at.
I don't know.
If we begin to get bogged down, why, we will skip it.
What do you think, Peter?
COMJ'USSIONER BRADFORD:
I am willing to try.
I unde -
stand there are substantial changes in a short period of time.
But I can do it either way.
19?
CO~~1ISSIONER KENNEDY:
Where are we, pages 7 through CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is the missing piece.
CO:r,.,T..MISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't want to mislead you.
mte 19 2
3 4
5 32 There are a couple of areas in there where we may have problems.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, if we were able to reach agreement on the others, those could be taken care of by footnotes in a much different way.
I don't care.
But I'm not going to be able to continue past 6:00 this evening.
I would 6
be willing to try again tomorrow.
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
This probably will narrow this.
Okay, page 7.
"This is an important problem."
for" --
too.
it means.
COM.MISSIONER KENNEDY: "This is an important problem CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
United States foreign policy.
COtvlMISSIONER KENNEDY: That's okay with me.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It.' s hard to fight that.
COMMISSIONER KFNNEDY:
The footnote is fine with me, MR. Iv'f.ALLORY:
Do you want to strike "inter alia"?
CHA.Iill-~AN HENDRIE:
Yes.
I've never figured out what Let's see.
"The basis for the Pres.ident' s request."
I don't know.
I don't care.
COMMISSIONER!-':KENNEDY:
It seems to me that's true.
But I don't really care.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It probably does not show very well on the Xerox.
But in the footnote, the word "also" goes in after "policy."
mte 20 33 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But again, those aren't changes of substance.
COW-HSSIONER KENNEDY:
The first sentence there can be dropped, I think, and the word "lengthy" adds nothing.
CIIAIRMAN HENDRIF.:
I would ask, can you stand to have this one in and that one out?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Since not everybody knows where the finger on the page was, we would leave in the first para-graph, we would leave that one in, and down in the footnote strike, the.* first sentence, strike "lengthy" and put in "also."
Okay.
Onward.
Page 9, "The United States thus asserts the right, under its cooperative agreements" -- what are they mumbling,over there?
Anything I should hear?
MR. PEDERSON:
No.
I have a copy that has both 17 Gilinsky's and Bradford's, and it's a little hard to tell.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER BAADFORD:
Mine would just delete "as-serts the right." Victor's takes all of that out.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me go back to your draft, Peter.
COMMISSIONER;:~KENNEDY:
Victor wan ts to put back the staff changes that were taken out.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
CO:MM.ISSIONER KPNNF.DY:
Including "therefore," I
mte 21 34 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 assume, the footnote.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I should think so, ves.
I don't have any objection.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don't have any objection to putting it back if it will make anybody any happier.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, putting it back comes in the context of a number of other changes which would be a good deal rnore difficult to parse.
I have a lot of difficulty trying to shake, at this point, to shake down the differences and understand where we are.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don't think it would hurt anything anyway.
It was there before his other changes.
But as I say, it doesn't make any difference to me.
CHAIPJJIAN HENDRII'.:
Peter, I would really rather stick to your draft and the agreements struck by the assistants on April 26th.
COMl'USSIONER BRADFORD:
I am hardly in a position to object no that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I assume you participated in that, didn't you, Hugh?
These adjustments to the April 26th draft?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
My own cl.raft doesn't put that one back in.
CHAIPJvT..AN HENDRIE:
That is true, and I am proposing
\\
to hang with the marY.up as you've marY.ed it up, which means
- l.
rote 22 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 35 that the sentence under "The President's nuclear nonprolifera-tion policy" would stay this way.
Now, get down there just before the footnote, and we have, "If the U.S. were to deny other nations while continu-ing to pursue commercial reprocessi.nq at home, it would under-mine the credibility of our" -- what's the word, Peter?
COMMISSIONER BR~DFORD:
Concern.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- "the credibility of our concer about the issue of plutonium, and encourage other nations to dev.elop their own."
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I've no concern about the "concern about the credibility about plutonium."
I think the last part -- what I think is more likely is, "and therebv lesse the likelihood that we could encourage others" COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
"To refrain from" CHAIR.111AN HENDRIE:
I think a period after "the use of plutonium" does the job.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think that does it.
I think it just gets redundant.
I don't think it is going to encourage them.
Those that are doing it are doing it anyway, or will.
What we wanted to do was :-.to try to get them to share our concern, and to the extent that continuing this effort casts doubt on our own credibility, we would be less likely to be successful in our effort to get them to join us in that concern.
I think the encouragement -- I think a period does
mte 23 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 36 it after "plutonium."
CHAiffi,W_N HENDRIF:
A period is one way, and if a period does not grab you I would recommend, "It would undermine the credibility of our concern about the use of plutonium, and our international initiatives toward nonproliferation."
If you would want to pick up that thought.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't think that those changes are quite as sharply focused as the real other thought there, that if someone resorted to a plutonium economy, so would others.
You are expressing the same concern at one higher level of abstraction~
So if vou are more comfortable with that, that is still all right.
CO.MMISSIONER.*:KENNEDY:
I am, because it implies more than just the plutonium question.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me scan just once more, and Rich, you take notes.
Those last lines there would be, "It would undermine the credibility of our concern about the use 0£ plutonium and our international initiatives toward nonpro-liferation."
Next page.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What are these deletions?
CHAIRMAN HElJDRIE:
Are those yours?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That was mine.
That was the page that I messed up so badly that I retyped and put it in clean.
mte 211 2
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
How did you manage to get it in between page 9 and page 10?
COMI--USSIONER BR.~DFORD:
That already, in fact, had 4
been done.
There was already a page 9A.
e-6 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 CHAifil'l'.AN HENDRIE:
I see.
37
341.07.l pv 2
3 38 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It you take the page by itself, then each of those sentences plays a role.
If you take that page in conjunction.with what has gone before it --
4 I-'m going through it -
it is so piecemeal.
But haven-'t.we 5
already said ev.erything in the f !rst 5 lines on the 6
immediately preceding pag.es?
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don*'t think so.
8 Co MMI SSI ONER BRADFORD.:
Why do.we need to say that 9
it is appropriate for us to consider.foreign-policy matters in 10 deciding to terminate the proceedings?
That is clearly JJ implicit in everythin~ that we-'Ye Just dons.
All we-'re doing 12 is talking about.f.oreign-policy ma:tters.
Why do.we have to 13 say that it is appropriate?
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Up till now, we-'ve b.een 15 saying all of thos~_things were impottant, and now we-'re 16 saying moreover not only are they important and significant to 17 the question, not only are those issues significant, btit it is 18 wholly within our power and, indeed,' *within our mandate to 19 take them into account in this domestic licensing decision.
20 You see, it-'s a different question. It is not an 21 expert question.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD.:
But the same thought, then, 23 also follows.
In that same paragraph, we cite sections of the 24 25 statutes that permit us to do that, and we go right through the same thought again, from there on down, by making it more
341.07.2 pv 2
3 4*
5 6
7 39 specific and, I _think, more useful.
We say Congress intended for us to do this; here are the sections.
Each of the individual license applications has been considered under one of these sections, and security is an essential element.
It just seems to me that we expressed the same thought twice within the space of 10 lines.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY*:
If we are to k.eep the first 8
sentence, I would certainly be prepared to drop that 9
introductDry phrase in the next sentence.
10 So, the first sentence going "So, although -
11 down
.11 through..,proceedings and Congress has determined that the 12 13 security-would be an essential element in an the domestic licensing decision....
14 And then, I don~t have any trouble with the other 15 changes.
In.other *words, I wou.l.d keep the first sentence and 16 take the other change~.
17 MR. MALLORY.:
The changes in the middle of the page 18 19 20 21
.22 23 24 25 after the word ~congressfl all the way down through all those numbers were made in the April 26 draft.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
oh; were they?
MR. MALLORY:
Yes.
And it could be sho.wn here, as you have typed it, as tl)e original.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Say that again *.
COMMI.SSIONER KENNEDY:
So, if we keep the first sentenc.e, drop the introductory part of the next sentence, and
3-41.07.3 pv 2
3 40 then take the rest of the paragraph with all those other changes.
MR. MALLORY:
Except for the last sentence, where 4
.we say w~ think it appropriate that -- and that includes 5
PeterJs change.
6 CO MMI SST ONER KENNEDY:
That is certain! y not 7
objectionable to me.
I think that-'s fine.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is the f.ootnote my doing or 9
yours?
10 MR. MALLORY:
That-'s yours.
I donJt think we would Jl object to knocking out all of the changes after the word 12
- "however. 11 13 14 15 marginal.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That would be okay with me.
MR. MALLORY:
The last point in the footnote was COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The more I thought about 17 that~ the more trotible I had with it, and that-'s why I t~ok it 18 out.
It would take me a moment to reconstruct my thinking.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let-'s strike it. Can somebody 20 tell me now.what we are groping for, in agr.eement, on page 9A?
21 COMMI.SSIONER BRADFORD:
On page 9A, you have the 22 first sentence I had taken out, and that was from "although" 23 down to "proceedings," and then the nation-'s security.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So, you part with "the Congre_ss 25 has*" --
~41.07.4 pv 41 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And-then the rest of it is 2
just the way itJs typed.
Those changes, with the exception of 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
JO A~e think it is appropriate,".are all paft of the sta+/-f April 26 draft.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
Would that be okay?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Fine.
MR. MALLORY:
And 11we think it appropriate" is out?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
True.
I £ee.
That is a dash on an o.
I got you.
Okay.
We.,ve got a 9A.
MR. MALLORY:
What about the first sentence o.f the
.J J
.footnote?
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE::
I think *"we do not find at this 13 timen is the better language.
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Sure.
If we say that, that 15 says on the merits -
we.11, how else could we say it?
16 MR. MALLORY:
It had to do with this troublesome 17 point in the end of it.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Page 10.
19 MR. MALLORY:
There are a couple of things that I 20 talked to the assistants about tbat don't appear anywhere 21 here, and I would bring them up.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Please do.
23 24 25 1,rn. MALLORY:
The last line oh 9A., we thought; might be changed from *11 greatJ' to "substantial deference.n COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That-'s a small change.
l.07.5 pv 2
3 4
5 42 Normally, I would object, because it is longer.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
He would object because itJs longer.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I am with him.
MR. MALLORY.:
That sentence runs to the next page..
6 ThereJs no paragraph there.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I see.
It would period with a 8
new sentence but not a new paragraph.
"It has been se+/-tled 9
that regulatory agencies are."
10 Anything more on 9A?
J l MR
- MALLORY:
No
- 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
10?
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The deletion, then, that 14 "foreign-policy views are entitled to great deferencen --.we 15 just sa.id it. That is the opening sentence of the paragraph.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Victor was taking it out.
17 But IJrn prepared to say it should stay.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE1 If we leave it in, we can take 19 it out here.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Victor is also taking it 21 out of there.
22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You canJt take it out.
ThatJs what the paragraph.J's about.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is Victor going to run in J80?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY.:
If he was going to run in
341.07.6 pv 2
3 4
5 43
..,.80, he would want a.11 of these in here.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Onward.
"Traditionally ext ended substantial deference when we believe permi£sible.n COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What does that mean?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That means.when the statute 6
tells you to do something, you have to do it whether the 7
President wants it or not.
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don-'t have any problem 9
with that.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Whe.re are we?
Jl CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
On page JO, about JO or 12 lines 12 down.
Now, what do the lines and all mean here?
13 14 15 16..
note means.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I can explain mine.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Which lines are thes.e?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
He..,.s going to explain what the 17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
First of all, the word 18
- "deference*" is now sti.11 in 3 times, on the bottom of 9A and 19 the middle of 10.
That is even with the deletion in one case.
20 Then, the next sentence begins,* "This deference.*"
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
What woul.d one do?
22 CO MNiI SSIONER BRADFORD:
My point there was not 23 that --
24 25 regard.*"
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, you could say "in this
41.07.7 pv 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 J 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
.44 CO MMI SSI ONER BRADFORD:
I-' ve raised the quest.ion in the margin, and I don-'t know what the answer is.
What I was after was some other citation from this Commission-'s long
'history,.which made the same point without having to cite a cas~ that, for one reason or another, I think they are going to know that I have some misgivings about.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
He can dissent.
MR. MALLORY.:
I don*'t know of any.
I think these are the ones that are most specific about the kind of things discussed in the quote.
I don-'t think there are many that are very explicit about.what is being done.
The Westinghouse case he.cited is not very explicit; and as far as I know, all of the other cases say almost nothing about *this subject in one
.way or another.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I think, with the change in the introductory sentence, I think the point ought to be made that it does reflect what the Commission has said in the past, and it would seem, if that makes Peter uncomfortable, if this is what.we were leading to, I would be prepared to include it as a footnote, that Commissioner Kennedy notes, indeed, that the Commission, in its wisdom, has already -
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
My concern *about it really doesn't go that far.
I*'m not very fond of either of those cases, but the particular language quoted here is not the part that causes the greatest trouble.
If that is the only place I
41.07.8 pv 2
3 4
45 where you can find the proposition stated with sufficient clarity, go ahead.
The idea of putting in a footnote appeals to me, just in terms of handling the text.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And I think that-'s fine, if 5
you want to make a footnote out of it.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Sort of this whole shebang here?
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY::
That piece is -
where that 8
line is, make a footnote out of that.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And if you hinged the 10
.footnote to the earlier sentence, you could get rid of another
.l I "deference.. "
12 13 14 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I was just going to take it out and say *"this has been formally recognized. 11 COMM! SSI ONER KENNEDY:
Or say *" in this r.egard, the Commission has stated-11 or 11 in this regard, we cite the 16 Commission-'s own decisions."
17 MR. MALLORY:
Assistants worked out language for 18 the sentence beginning nThus, while the Commission is not 19 infallible, it has traditionally accorded due regard to _
20
- 21.
22 23 24 25 Executive Branch viaws in matters touching foreign policy"
- "the United States foreign policy 11 *--
COMMI.SSIONER KENNEDY:
That-'s.fine.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I-'11 buy it
- COMMI.SSIONER KENNEDY:
And then Peter would like to have in "when lega.lly permissible."
341.07.9 pv 2
3 46 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What I would like to have in there, actually, would force me to rethink my o.wn insert,*
and it would be to put at the end of that sentence "the 4
Executive Branch touching matters of foreign policy in the 5
absence of a clear statutory mandate."
6 CO MMI SSI ONER KENNEDY:
That., s fine.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think that.,s excellent.
And 8
that could be appended to that~ which would avoid another 9
"substantial concurrence" or "de ferenc.e. 11 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
At the top of page JI, you
-11
.wi.11 find_ *11 deference" again.
12 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY.:
We are not still using that word ~touching United States foreign policy." It is one thing 14 to say we accorded deference to matt.ers that reflect policies; 15 it-"s another thing to say it is tangentia.lly r.elated.
We 16 would c.ertainly have an e.ffect on the amount of deference we 17 are going to accord.
18 MR. MALLORY.:- That is sti.11 in.
19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:.
I.would change the.word to.....
20 naffected. 11 21 CHAI_RMAN HENDRIE:
How does that read there, in the 22
.middle of 10, as you,worked it o'ut, Rich?
23 MR. MALLORY:
It is:
JtThus, while the Commission 2-4 25 is not compelled to adhere to the President-'s views, it has traditionally accorded due regard to Executive Branch views in
34 l.07. l 0 pv 2
3 47 matters affecting United States foreign policy in the absence of a clear st~tutory mandate to the contrary."
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think that sounds fine.
- Now, 4
what was this businass?
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Taking out the word 6
- " touching*" and changing it to II a.ff ect ing.i, 7
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let-'s strike 11tradi tion."'
MR. MALLORY:
The footnote will begin with a quote,
\\
9 and I think Commissioner Kennedy had some language as to how JO the footnote might start.
It seems tom~ it can simply begin JI
~ith a quote.
12 13 1 4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We..11, Just say, uThe recent decisions of the Commission reflect this view."
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You could Just start with a 15 quote.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I guess.
Sure.
17 MR. MALLORY.:
Or simply knock the word defere11c.e 11 18 out of the sentence.
19 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Either May.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
Sure.
Just take the 21 word ~deference" out and stick the whole thing down there.
22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Page JI.
MR. MALLORY:
Pages JJ, 12, and 13 were substantiaily ~orked over by the assistants.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I have pages with double
r4 I.07. 11 pv 48 lines down the side of them.
2 MR. MALLO.RY:
That.was a substantial revision that 3
appeared here, and there were further revisions that the 4
assistants worked out.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Are the assistants-' latest 6
things titled nredra+/-t of pages JI, 12, 13 of the April 26 7
draftJ'?
8 9
MR. MALLORY:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Those start with the words 10
-- let me try to pick up.
I think the first sentence on page JI Jl, I took out -
12 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Wait a second.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Your new pages 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Go back to what -
go back, 15 Dick, to what you would think,would be pag.e 18, and what you 16
.wLll discover is the page after 17.
17 MR. KELLEY:
Mr. Chairman,.we-'ve got versions here 18 that Rich tells me are the versions, and I've Xeroxed these.
19 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Pass them out, please.
COMM! SSI0NER KENNEDY:
Apropos of my comment~
21 earlier -
22 23 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I take it we dra.w a line here.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It says "in addition."
That stuff is a footnote on the other page, now.
I don't kno.w what I
25
_this is.
I"m reading_this for the first time.
41.07.12 pv 49 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What do you do.with the f.ootnote 2
to the footnote?
3 4
5 6
MR. MALLORY.:
That, I think, is taken out.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD.:
I have no qualms with those changes.
As far as r m concerned, you can go up to page 14.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would like to get to read 7
them.
Well, I am reading something else.
I was looking at 8
these.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That, starting at the 10 appropriate place, replaces this.
J l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do we start cleaning on page 14?
13 Yes, we do, because it is a ne.w section..
14 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let me reserve on those 2 15 pages overnight, so I can l.ook at them and read them.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The ne.w.11, 12,. and 13 were the 17 result of.what?
18 MR. MALLORY:
AssistantsJ discussions about what is 19 reflected in the draft that you have and the draft we have 20 been discussing.
21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But they were not 22 recirculated again until just this minute.
I donJt have them.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think I ended up ge~ting them
- 24 25 MR. MALLORY:
They were attached, supposedly, to theed o~ the thing.we have here.
41.07.13 pv 2
3 50 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Oh, so they are.
Mine are between pages 37 -- no, mine.were between 2 copies of page 38, which is where you would almost always Look.for pages 10, JI, 4
and 12, or pages IJ, 12, and 13.
I should have done that.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I* always look for them after 6
page 17, myself.
Why don*'t we c 1 ip these in at this point?
7 You would like to read them, but there is at least a strong 8
presumption of acceptability, if the assistants have talked to 9
each other on them.
10 COMM! SSIONER KENNEDY:
Let me have the opportunity JI to read them.
But I will cont irm that early on in the 12 morning.
13 MR. MALLORY.z There is a word -"start" marked on the 14 first page.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
This version doesn"'t even 16 have it. This was a really fancy one.
17 MR. MALLORY.:
In the draft we have been going 18 through here, at the top of page Jl, there is a sentence that 19 was intended to be part of the thing that was going on on page I
20 JO that we have been discussing, to be the terminal sentence 21 of that paragraph.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Once you turn it into a 23 footnote, that sentence disappears.
I would have taken it out*-
24 25
.rega.rdless, but certainly, once it is a footnote -
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don't think it-"'s
41
- 07. 1-4 pv 51 necessary.
2 3
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I did not feel it.was nece.ssary anyway.
4 C0MMI.SSI0NER KENNEDY:
I don"'t think it is 5
necessary any longer.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Str~ke it.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The way we have redone the 8
other page.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Strike it. Peter, if.this 10 section comes out after fewer deferences to the President,
.I l than your version did -
12 C0MMI SS!ONER BRADFORD.:
It may.
I think you can 13 probably now pull that paper clip on page 24.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Alternative fuel in cycl.es.
15 This language seems good to me.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Fine.
17 CHA.I RMAN HENDRIE:
We can accept that language o 18 "These studies will at least provide important information" -
19 et cetera, et cetera.
Good.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The President has said that 21 the.whole purpose of the exercise is to make the benefits of 22 nuclear po.wer a-vailable to all nations.
23 2-4 25 C0MMI.SSI0NER BRADFORD:
Is.that in the charter?
MR. PEDERSON:
_It is taken from his statement to the conference, I think.
41.07.15 pv 52 C0MMI.SSI0NER BRADFORD.:
Can you quote it, rather 2
than paraphrase it?
The only reason I t.ook it out was it 3
seemed different than the course we were going on.
4 MR. PEDERSON:
I think it is from his keynote 5
a ddre..ss.
6 MR. MALLORY:
I believe that is essentially a 7
quote.
8 COMMIBSI0NER BRADFORD~
LetJs use the exact 9
language..
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If you use the exact JI language, we can leave that to you.
12 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We get to flip the page.
- Now, letJs see, in the previous paragraph, the one with the lining.
14 We talked about NASEP, and the change would be the specific 15 focus involved.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I suggest dropping th.e first 17 sentence.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
I was going to try to read (9
how the change -- and see how it sounded..
"The specific focus 20 that these*" --
21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Jt0f both studies."
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
11Is on alternatives that combinesu -- this gets us on more swiftly.
LetJs please do I
that.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I must say I pre fer the word
41.07.16 pv 53 JI appropriate. J1 2
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That-'s a word that I 3
usually choke on, because it is a substitdte tor something 4
else, usually.
But it isn't something I feel strongly about.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Maybe.we can find another 6
word, but nwaste of time and effort," I think that is a li~tle 7
strong.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let-' s use II inappropriate. 11 9
Instead o.f saying "waste of time and effort,-11 you-'re saying 1 O Precisely what is bothering you.
- "The Commission must --
.J J should --"
12 13 14 15 16 COMM! SSIONER KENNEDY:
I don"t care.
CHA IR MAN HENDRIE:
Do you st i 11 1 i k e II must JI ?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That-'s okay.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Put in ~must."
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I don-'t know why.we delete 17
- this, except I think you argue redundancy.
Is the last 18 sentence, though, really redundant?
Have we been makin~ that 19 point? '
20 MR. MALLORY:
I think we made it pretty we.II in the 21 sentence we just discussed.
22 COMM! SSIONER BRADFORD:
That seems to me to say the 23 same thing.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Not quite, because here 25 there are two things, either as to the GESW> proceedings, or
1.07.17 pv 1d#7 2
3 54 the licensings, and the other sentences 9 the other sentence refers only to a decision on licensing.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Suppose we just put in the 4
GESMD proceedings?
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That-'s fine..
That-' s okay.
6 The decision either on -
a final decision either on the GESMO 7
proceedings or the licensing of plutonium recycled functionso 8
That will take care of it.
9 10 J l 12 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And cWi th that change, addition to 15,.we can strike on 16 -
17 *- I like 17 -
18 *-
MR. MALLORY:
Only 2 pages to go.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
11The Commission"s decision to terminate these proceedings does not involve their final 14 disposition on the merits" -- Bll agree the change would be, 15 as we have covered, 11 the present state of studies."
16 Rich, does that get the same thought to you?
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That seems to me to get it 18 a.11.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seems to me a better phrasing 20 actually.
21 22 23 24 25 MR. MALLORY.:
Mine is a bit cumbersome.
CR 7341 HEER t-8 rote 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 55 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
By George, I think you've extract d a confession.
Okay, the change accepted up there at the beginning:
"Moreover, the Presic.ent has not stated."
Well, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I'm not troubled by the dele-tion.
We have said that already.
We certainly said that earli r on.
At the beginning of the paper we said that.
That is what he wrote us.
That doesn't trouble me.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Vic, I notice, has deleted the sente~ce before that.
CHl\\.IRMAN HENDRIE:
I would rather hang onto the one before that.
COM~ISSIONER KENNEDY:
The one before that should be hung onto, and again, it is a statement of fact.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Again, I was just going to suggest that we use, if there is in fact a precise sentence from the speech, that we use the exact sentence.
MR. MALLORY:
For the one that is crossed out?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
Cm-1MISSIONER KENNEDY:
No, for the one that is not crossed out.
COMMISSIONER BRA.DFORD:
I'm sorry, the one that is crossed out in Victor's copy.
MR. MALLORY :
"Premature entry into the economy."
Those are his words, "Pr.emature entry into the plutonium
mte 2 2
3 4
5 economy."
56 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What about the first half?
MR. MALLORY:
That I think would be --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
My concern is that it is always chancy to paraphrase the President in situations like 6
this.
The State Department and the President try to put their 7
thoughts in some precision.
8 9
10 11 M.R. MALLORY:
That would, I think, be more difficult to find, a specific statement that says something very close to that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is there anywhere in here where 12 we refer to the Administration?
13 14 15 MR. M.ALLORY:
I think several places.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Would it help to say, "The Ad.minis tration has not taken a final position"?
I begin to sense what 16 your problem is.
Watch about saying what the man said if you 17 don't have it right there.
18 19 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is exactly right.
I agree with that.
You better say what the man said in his words, 20 not yours.
21 22 23 24 sentence.
CHAIPMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, we can strike the next COMMISSIONER KFNNEDY:
That's all right with Ine.
CID-URMAN HENDRIE:
"The Administration's policy Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 will presumably take account of the study~s results."
That
rote 3 2
3 4
5 6
?
8 seems like sort of a smart crack to me.
COMMISSIONER KFNNEDY:
I really think we ought to delete that word.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
"Presumably"?
57 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Around the world, we have enough problems with people who have serious doubts about our seriousness about this.
COMMISSIONER BPADFORD:
I did not mean it *as a 9
wisecrack.
I meant it simply to indicate that we are in a posi 10 11 12 tion of presurn.img the Administration can take account of any-thing.
CHAIP..MAN HENDRIE:
All right.
Now, let's get down 13 here after the remarks.
"The Commission is committed to re-14 15 16 examining..,Jilts decision to terminate, in light of the completed studies."
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's okay.
Why would we 17 delete the footnote?
18 19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I deleted it because I thought it was at some variance.
The first sentence is not a 20 problem.
The second sentence I thought was at some variance 21 22 23 24 with our order itself.
What I would need to have read to me to be sure whether --
CHAIID~AN FENDRIE:
I would like to keep the first sentence of the footnote, and strike the second.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You would not even need it as
rote 4 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 58 a footnote if that's all you've got.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Right.
Why not just move the sentence up?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Just say, "In light of the completed studies, expected to take about two years,"
is that okay, and then you could just delete the footnote alto-gether?
That's all right with me.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Are we aboard, Rich?
MR. MALLO~Y:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think we can flip the page.
Okay, then.
"Will then be reinst~tuted on whether some other course will be adopted."
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Where's this, now?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Page 19 up at the top. "The changes then will be reinstituted or whether some other course 16 will be adopted."
I think that's fine.
Let's do it this way.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 "But in this posture, the,termination is not a final disposi-tion."
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Ot the individuul license application, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Rich, do you see any difficulty with that?
MR. MALLORY:
No.
CHAIRM~.N HENDRIF:
Now, the sentence did have in it, "both the individual license application on the merits and the
rote 5 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 59 issues surrounding widescale plutonium recyclinq."
Now, in coming down to "the in<3.ividual license applications," have we missed something?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Why don't we just say "final disposition of the GESMO.studies," as we did earlier?
MR. MALLORY:
."Of GESMO proceedings"?
CO:MMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I guess I would prefer "widescale plutonium recycling" if we mean to say that, because we did terminate the GESMO proceedings.
CHAIPJvT.AN HENDRIE:
I would call it something dif-ferent next time.
COMMISSIONER: :KENNEDY:
That-t,s '1.tr.ue.~
CHAIR:tvT.AN HENDRIE:
But you see, in the contraction that you made it, it comes down from i:both the recycling, the generic recycle and licenses, to just the particular licenses.
And I think the intent was the broader one.
Rich, any comment there?
MR.. MALLORY:
Yes, I would prefer to see something like that.
COMl'-HSSIONER BRADFORD:
Again, it's one of thos,?
sentences where I did not take it out.
There is a sentence on the preceding page that permits us to re-examine the decision to terminate the proceedings.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
To an extent that's repetitious,
mte 6 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 60 but it is a fairly substantial sentence and it is one that is going to be quotable.
So I think it ought to go "termination is not a final disposition of the issues surrounding widescale plutonium recycling or of the individual license appld:cati,ons on the merits."
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
The next one seems fine to me.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The footnote, what is that?
COMl'USSIONER KENNEDY: "The license application has been denied without prejudice."
CHAIID'I..AN HENDRIE:
Rich, you are looking reflective.
Have you got this?
.MR. MALLORY:
Yes, I'm following it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: - Peter, do you have any problems?
MR. BRADFORD:
Let me take ten more seconds to go through that.
CO.Jlll.1-USSIONER KENNEDY:
To me, this has been a worth-while afternoon's work.
CHAIID.1[AN HFNDRIE:
Can I leave in the "deference" on page 24?
COMl'.USSIONER BRADFORD:
I think we have reduced the number of.deferences" to a substantial extent.
CHlURMAN HENDRIE:
Page 24, the "deference" stays in MR~.:, TIALLORY:
pages 11 through 13 remain.
CHAIRMJ:>..N HENDRIE:
I will sign off on right now.
mte 7 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 Commissioner Kennedy will let you know first thing in the morning.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let me just say this.
If 61 we are prepared to now together say this draft, as we have just gone through it, is acceptable, I will guarantee you that, unless there is a significant change other than editorial, I will personally come around and see each of you tomorrow morn-ing.
I doubt that that will be the case.
And I would say I would sign off on the document right now.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, you may still have problems if Victor wants to do a separate statement on this.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
MR. MALLORY:
It is easy enough to add a sentence and attach his views.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But with the understandings expressed here and your survey of this thing tonight, may we agree that this is indeed the statement of reasons?
And I will ask you, by God, to vote on it.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
CHAI1<MAN HENDRIE:
So ordered.
And I must say, this is extraordinary.
(Whereupon, at 6: 15.p::.. :i:r,.., the meeting was adjourned.