ML22230A176
| ML22230A176 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/18/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780518 | |
| Download: ML22230A176 (1) | |
Text
~ETURN TO SECRETARIAT RECORDS DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LICENSING LEGISLATION Open to Public Attendance May 18, 1978 Pages 1 -
139 Prepared by:
C.H. Brown Office of the Secretary
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED LICENSING LEGISLATION (Open to Public Attendance) 1 Comrnission*ers' Conference Room Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
Thursday, May _18., 1978 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:55 a.II)..
Joseph Hendrie, Chairman, presiding.
PRESENT:
Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford ALSO PRESENT:
- s. Chilk J. Kelley
- w. Reamer C. Stoiber E. Case L. Gossick A. Kenneke J. Aron M. Malsch D. Muller
.1 2
3 4
5 6
I 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2
P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Could we.come to order.
Today we are discussing proposed licensing legislation, in particulal'.'. the testimony on the same.
I have got a copy of -- let's see, there is a May 17th version froin Kelley- _that is now the base document, I think.
MR. REAMER:
That's correct.
There would be two documents to work from, the May 17 memo from Kelley with the testimony behind it and Commissioner Gilinsky's changes to that.*
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-The May 17th version represents changes from -- combines my markup of the original Kelley draft, Conµnissioner Bradford's comments,.OPE and OGC.
I'm afr~id we are going to have to trace through it.a page at a time,'if that's okay with you.
The middle of th~ first paragr~ph, I. can stand a change that Peter suggested.
It is more accurate.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's see, I guess my point -
I guess I was, originally working from that.
My point was simply th~t there was one draft that we did comment extensively on and had various degrees *of comments and direction.
I think that could be described as extensive comments.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see, it seems to me we prepared letters of some weight on a couple of drafts, Marty,
1 2
.3' 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3
do you remember?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Was there more than one?
MR. MALSCH:
There was the October 0MB comments, and before then.we had sent over, I think a draft of the bill jusi for purposes of dii~ussion.
I don't think there have:been any written comments besides that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Did we send anything over on subsequent drafts?
MR. MALSCH:
I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: There were some individual comments, I suppose on the first draft.
Well, it is just a matter of stating accurately what our role is.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, how would you like, in any event, to strike "frequent1¥"?
COMMISSIONER,BRADFORD:
I have no problem with that.
It depends how you define "consultant," I guess.
We present copies of every draft that.came along, and I guess the coverin letter usually said comments would be acceptable or welcome.
May not, mayb~ they just said, "for your information."
I really don't remember the covering letter.
MR. KELLEY:
They tended to ask for comments on the next day.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, as I said, it depends on how you define consultant.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Vic, the thing is already pretty well qualified, take out the "frequeritly."
I don't know, "frequently consulted and commented extensively,"
either frequeritly or ext~nsively could. stand to go, maybe you would prefer to take extepsively out.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
we11; we certainly commented extensively on one draft~..
CHAI:RMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, well, until late October, okay, we had our version which we.certainly commented.on in some length, we had their version which we cornrnented on in the formal 0MB round, that was certainly an extensive comment.
As long as i_t is qualified "until late October," is it all that much of a h~ssle for you?
COivIMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess not, really.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't we leave it.
I think the next thing you want to take out is much more of a problem.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are we dropping "frequently"?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
- Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's alright with me.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I'm a little bit bothered about saying "cornrnented*exclusively on various draft versions."
I guess I don't think that's really right, and certainly not as a Commission.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I suppose two would
1 2
3 4
5 6
7.,
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5
be accurate.
In one case we were sent a draft and we sent back a rewttbe saying this ii the. rohte you want to gq, this draft is better.
That's a pretty extensive comment.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are you referring to the 0MB comments?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, that was what, late September', Marty when we ---
MR. MALSCH:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- we sent them our own.
draft* after having gone line-by-line throu~h it.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This was the result of a number of Commission meetings *. __ _
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
where we really went through the bill in great detail and that's the one I had in mind.
- COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But then we did do the same thing again in late October, and that's when we sent a 9-page letter to McIntyre at 0MB.
MR._MALSCH:
That's right.
And attached to the letter was also a redraft of the bill.*
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
A second redraft?
MR. MALSCH:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So we made two fairly.extensive excursions to the versions.
There isn't any attempt to get
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6
more specific here than there is draft versions, and it does qualify in October and then from then on individual Commissioner's comments.on a less formal ba~is, et cet~ra.
Now,* you want to take out.that next sentence and I have problems' with that.
Gilinsky.)
("You" referring to Commissioner The thing is qualified to say llwith exceptions,"
but the basic features of the bill are proposals.which the Commission has been putting up for several years and it seems to me the fact that those basic features do, in our
- view and in the Commission's past view, -represent reasonable and workable approaches to approving some of the aspects.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think that adds somewhat to the early siting and the:stahda~dii~tibtir and I don't think it applies to the CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's right.
And to the CP-OL COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't think it applies to the requireme*nt of the NEPA.
I think that's a different category.
CHA~RMAN HENDRIE:
Well, we sent up a draft -- when we sent back our draft, why we had a base version and alternat version, both of which dealt -- one of them was very close to the principal which is in here and the other one backed off somewhat.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We*indicated a preference
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7
for the other one.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes*.
I guess I think
- 'there.is a significant. amount of difference between those.
You know, it comes down to what do you mean by excepti'ons or how*you qualify you know, you c'ouid say the* Commission supports the notion of early siting* and standardizati*on and having the states do it as much as is reasonable or.
something like that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, we come in turn to those details as we* go through.an overview.
You* can** t,say every-thing in the first sentence, and it seems to me ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But when you say the basic features of this bill.you are going beyond these general conc~pts, you are saying the way they'are implement~d in this bill.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, the way the early site reviews, standardization, CP-OL thing are implemented in this bill, early notice is here for practically everything we do, much earlier notice than is now the case.
And we support:that down the line.
cm-'.lMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well; I mean you could say "supports these basic principles bf this bill as structured."
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Supports.the basic principles of this bill?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why don't we set this one
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8
aside since this one probably causes more problems than any other change and come back to this one.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Let's see, I don't think there is anything else on this page that is a problem..
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There -is a sentence, -the one, "This statement reflects the view of the Commission as a whole... " which again, we ought to come back to and that will depend on where we are at the end of* the statement.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Next page.
Had a comment from ELD, top of the page, "The Commission will submit for the :J:Tecord detaiied comments and specific suggested language concerning largely technical and clarifying changes we think should be made."
A suggestion that that might very well go off to.the end of the statement as a sort of a.last comment before the signoff.
COMMISS*IONER BRADFORD:
It.doesn't matter.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, why *don't we do that.
MR. REAMER:
Was there a suggestion as to where
- it would specifically fit at>the end o"r just that it be tagged on?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Stick it right at the very end, don't you think?
Or don't people think it is worth worrying about?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
T~at's one I'll leave to
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your discretion.
I really don't care, It makes no big difference.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Find a place for it, okay.
Changes in the middle of the page, I don't have any problem with.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't have a problem with your change over my change.
I don't know whether yours was made -- I guess it was made do you think frustrating and expensive better adjectives than exhaustive and unfair?
MR. KELLEY:
I think Commissioner Gilinsky's are perfect.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, in any case the intervenor groups will be there and they will tell the Congress exactly how we characterize it, at least.
It is of secondary importance.
CHAIRMAN. HENDRIE:
So frustrating and expensive?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And exhaustive and unfair.
That's, all right, leave it the way it is.
MR. REAMER:,
Leave it which way?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Leave it Victor's way.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And the others, I don't have much problem.
MR. KELLEY:
I'm not clear on the significance of the asterisk of your version?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
They are color coded.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. KELLEY: Yes, that's what I got, great.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
A comment from ELD at the 10 bottom of page 2, "Legitimate interests are to some extent necessarily in conflict in the nuclear licensing process."
Therefore, the recommendation was that a statement more along the lines.~~eforms to the nucl~ar licensihg process.should attempt to accommodate 'in a reasonable manner the numerous and sometimes conflicting interests that are a problem.~
MR. KELLEY:
Where are you, at the bottom of page 2?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
The first sentence in that paragraph at the bottom of page 2.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see.
I.have something before that.
I would strike the "wasteful" at bottom of page 2, and let me tell you why.
It is not clear to me that a system of duplicative reviews, at least in this bill -- at least as proposed in this bill, we would be going necessarily to.a more efficient process, and so I think ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't have any problems with that.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Duplicative carries with it some notion of wastefulness,: I suppose any way.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
My only problem with the word is that undoubtedly I will mispronounce it.
MR. REAMER:
So there is the ELD change *the one
1 2
3
- 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we are discussion?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is there anywhere in existence a copy -of the ELD changes?
11*
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There is an ELD document -- it would look like this one.
(Showing Commissioner Bradford the document. )
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I see, that's just a sentence that would go in and then sentence.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It would replace the first COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I see.
I have no problems with that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I guess I know what is meant by.
the OGC language and you do, but I think the proposed language is a bit clearer.
Have you got the May 12th Shapar note?
There is.a blank look over there among the keepers of the records.
MR. REAMER:
Marty do you ---
MR. MALSCH:*
I have a copy, but not an extra copy.
MR. REAMER:
Well, I will just get that language, if there is agreement on it, from Marty.for that sentence.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do you find the sentence? It is included in the draft there at the bottom of the first page, th~t note Shapar recommended.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12
. 13 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 Next page.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think we have had some.editorial confusion between me and OGC on the next page.
MR. REAMER:
If you were to delete the "I think" sentence, I think that that would better reflect the suggested change.
MR. KELLEY:
I don't think the French say what you have them saying.
It depends on which Frenchman you are.
talking about.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I also think the saying is dispersion and I just put in the margin the notation that I thought the actual saying was different from the one they have you quoting,:Joe, but I don't purport to know what it is.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Can't we just drop it~
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't we just delete the opinions of the French, whatever they may be, without prejudice, of course.
There is a double "that".
"I wo~ld
- urge that that best possibility" it is two lines above.
MR.. REAMER:
Yes, we only need one.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I believe in the first version there wasn't any, and now you are putting in two.
So on average you have got the right number of them.
Now, I don't know what your comment means, Vic, stet?
1 2
3 4
5, 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Oh, j1.+st ignore'it.
Let's see, would we be taking out, "The Administration's" and *
. so on?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, Peter wanted to strike it and I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I. would be inclined to strik it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Put a question mark by it.
I have a problem if we go through and take out -- this is.
a little bit like the references to the def~rences-to the President the other day, Peter's problem.
That is, I don't mind --
I can't stand to seem them all deleted, and I think the one at the beginning is a more reasonable statement.
This one, I would tend to say; okay, let's take this one 6ut.
COMMIS~IONER BRADFORD:
Okay, the difference *between this situation and that one is that in that case, at least tho e were true. there, they are all _agreed that in fact, deference to the President was one of reasons on this question of how often one wanted and -so on.
In this case, the bill as written, including the various limitations on hearings, I would not urge that it be inacted with my understanding now of what Department of Energy intends by the hybrid hearing*s.
- so that we may really have trouble and this is why r*think it is wise to hold these summary sentences until the end and see just where we are.
1
,2 3
4
,5 6
7" 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
],9 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 But we may have trouble in coming to a conclusive sentence which says the Commission endorses this bill and all of
., its provisions.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right.
G:OMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This.. is also a more specific statement than previous,ly.
- COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Which in a sense is more difficult, you know, if you said "with appropriate opportunities for public par;ticipation," my concern is a coup;e of the. sections really give the boot to public 12articipa tion ~
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, I have got some problems going on down the rest of the page.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Now, the green ink is your changes, is it?
MR. REAMER:
That's correct?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is Joe's changes?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, but I have got other problems on rereading the thing.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are on page*3?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
Down at the b*ottom it talks about the problem of reducing the overall time required for licensing, some problems in power plant licensing simply are not acceptable and so on.
1 2
3'.
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
,18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What do you have.in mind ther?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, that's what I'm talking about.
I ain't go{ there yet.
We are using the word licensing here tp refer
- tQ the whoie sequence of getting a pow~r*plant on line,
~nd some of.the aspects of that overall process, which are not susceptible to a legislative and administrative fix and not the licensing aspect~.
In principle, a strcike of the pen by the Congress would eliminate-licensing and that would presumably fix whatever delays we are associated with.
So where it says that it'may not fulli achieve the Administration's stated objectives and projections, particularly in reducing the overall time required to put a new power plant on line is my suggestion,in lieu of licensing.
Then, I would propose to go on, "some problems in that process, such as uncertainty over utilities load growth or financial difficulties are not"..;._ either simply are not susceptible br _are not easily susceptible to an Administrative legislative fix.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Or for that matter, aspects of the construction of the plant which takes up the bulk G-f _ the. time
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
"Financial difficulties or
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 construction delays."
How about that?
MR. CASE:
What do you mean by construction delays?
- coMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Equipment being late, labor problems.
. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If. you get a bad winter and a lot of rain and they have to knock it off for a month, whatever.
Anything that delays construction is a construction delay.
Okay, can I read that-again.
Let me start back at the beginning of the two sentences, it is right *after the words: ".. by the Commission;" green star.
"And I think we need to recognize that H.R. 11704, if enacted, is not going to remake the world of nuclear power plant licensing,"
that's certainly true.
I think it needs "and" at that point.
Would you put an "and" in.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would take out the II and" at the beginning of the sentence,.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would take out an "and" at the beginning of the sentenc*e.
That's fair, that preserves the number of "ands" thus far.
That's good.
".. and that it.may not fully achieve the Administrat-i6n's stated objectives and projections, particularly in reducing the overall time required,"
new words, "to put a new power.plant on line."
chance to transcribe~
I will give the drafters a Then it-would go on, "Some problems in that process,
1 2
3
4 5
6 17 such as uncertainty over a utilities load growth, financial difficulties" ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let~s see.* Let's stop there.
The objective. is not to c1ear~nce on line fast, but io have a pl:'o~ess which, if you want the plant to, *get on line fast it allows* you 'to do it.
The uncertainty about the utilities 7
load' growth woµld simply cause the* u*~ili ty to slow,down and
- 8.
.perhaps properly.*. So I don't think that '*s the kind of thing 9
.. 10 11
- 12.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, it is, because* repeatedly plants get started on the.basis of a projection made at time "a" and two years later, why the plans are going along, maybe some foundation wo:rk is done and they find, gee, we have got to slip it and now they call off the construction for two years..
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right, but. they may be doirig just the right thing from a national**,point of 'view.
And it isn't the Administration's intent,. I would think, to have plants built that dori't need to b~*built.
I think what one ought to be aiming for is to reduce the lead time for building a plant if you waht to build a plant, so that you have a more flexible system that can better _ deal with the energy problems.
- In, other words,.there can be a very long lead time that make the system inflexible and mak:es it more difficult to respond to your energy problems.
So I think the other point you.'mentioned, for example, construction delays would fall in that category.
In other words,
'\\
\\..
1
- 2 3
4 5
6
~
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 I
-.,/
t.hei:y. doi-iaffect-_6ur ability to get a* plant* on line when we*
want it on.line foruconstm;uction*problems of one*kind or another.
But I would say uncertainties of a loa,d growth form another category~ _ _,-
- In' othe,r wo:i;:-ds, the point, I think, is n(?t' to just
- giindly ge;t plants on li~e as fast as you can, but have a. system that has' *as: short a. lead time as possible *when yoµ r,eally want t'o* get a plant o:r:i, line.*
,CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: *I think that's correct.
Do.you want to strike ..unce:t-i:a+/-nty over load growth, II Peter?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It really doesn't matter.
It.certainly is a problem-~-
CHAIR.M4N' HENDRIE: *rt clearly is a*factor *in *how aggres~+/-vely a utility.pursues the*constructioh schedule on a plant.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, why don't you put it in and if it comes up.*we will just explain,**it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And it -- You know you a~e right what you say about the syetem.
I have no difficulty with striking.it and ~aying,~~such as construction delays or financial difficulties." All I'm looking for is to call their attention that the sort of problem that-we have in mind that the iegislation aren't gqing to cure, things*which the legislatio just doesn't attempt*to address properly.
So I just wanted a couple of specimens to indicate the
1 2
3 4
S' 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 type.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But, I guess what bothers me a little bit is that it sounds as if they ought to be getting those plants built.
Mciybe they should and maybe they shouldnit.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, let's strike the*-- let it read:
"Sonie problems in that.process,. ~uch as.construction delays or financial difficuties,"
okay?
MR. CASE:
The industry is going to say some of the construction delays are due to staffs, ratchets, so you.are walking into that if you use "construction delays."
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's all right.
All I want is to get some specimens, and indeed to the extent staff ratchets contribute, that's* rig~t, but the if amalgated electric workers go on strike -- and by God they do on almost every project, not saying every year, but on every project -- that's something that we are not responsible for in which the Congress would probably be reluctant to cure legislatively.
Okay, then it would go on, ".. construction delays or financial dif_ficul ties, are not easily susceptible?" or do you care?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would just say "not susceptibl CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Oh, I suppose fn the most Draconian sense they are suscepitable to it, that is why I was going to say,."are not easily susceptible."
II
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
~-,
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think that's good.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
II to a l~g{slative or Administrative fi,x. -"
Similarly at th~ top of page 4 I have;got some
' problems, again that I didn't notice previously.
Whether there is a noriexistent demand for plants ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see.
I. think it is okay,
up to "enactment" isn't it?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
Oh, yes, sure.
COMMISSIONER GILTNSKY:
Why don't.we just put a period there.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Put *a.period there that wouid help considerably.
COMMJ;'SSIONER Gr'LINSK);:
J;* think it really contains the next thought in it and we can just drop the rest of it.
How's that?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Now, when you speak of the nuclear industry are we looking into utilities and* the vendors or what?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would think so, and you know, the subcontractors, suppliers ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I wonder ij it might not be worth separating those out, with the uitilities and the nuclear industry or something like that.
1 2
3 4
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14
- 15.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
.21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:. I.have no problem with that.
Of what,, the utilities and the -- in the sense that, utilities are considerably more than they are part of the nuclear industry, but the:i;e... is also a lot more.to it than that.
COMMil3SIONER BRADFORD:
That's also true of Westi11ghouse.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I.don't care, what*would you like, Peter?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It really doesn't matter to me, but I'm not sure that I care one way o:t the other.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I don't care.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
II;;*:.~. :iaspects of this bill may
. "?
. improve....
Some of them should improve,*
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have no. 9-ifficulty, to Vic's change to my change.. Maybe we could work with that~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
".* may tend to improve.. "
well, certainly certain features of the bill -- the question is this:
what are you comparing it with? ':(f :yo_µ _
- comparet, v.1ith tli.e~:cway things are done_ now, then I-think user should improve it,. but if you compare it:~.wi*thout the bil~,
- then is it going. to do much beyond that,
- and I think at that point it becomes*pretty questionable.
If you compare with the system up to now,. custom plants, custom reviews and so on, then I think the.answer is "should approve."
But in* fact, we are implementing a lot of
1 2
3 4
. 5 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 thes~.~hings,* and the questions really ought to b~ is what difference does this bill make, and at that point the difference is between the track that we a:re on and what is r,
possible under the bill becomes not very *gX'_e~:t ;and in what*
~~eas it'. is going to be a plus is not very clear.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We could add, II as con t:tas ted :*
with the situation today."* "... should improve as contrasted with the sutiliation today."
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, but then I think that is almost misleading in that we do have a lot of things under way, because we are implementing standardization, we are implementing early siting and so on.
And I think the comparison ought to be with the situation that would obtain without the bill and the situation that would obtain with the bill.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think as long as you have already limited it and said "the aspects of the bill" rather than the whole shebang, that it is true either way.
With the bill we can go ahead with a combined CP-OL on a final design and I'm convinced that in a few years that is what we are going to be seeing.
We can't do that at the present time, it has to go double review.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes, but as you pointed out, occasionally there is going to be some time before that gets exercised.
I mean, if that's what you are talking about ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is certainly one of the things
1 2
3 4
5
.. 6 7
- 8.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 in my view.
I just have doubts that the early site review rrovisions --
I think we have gone about *as far with the rule as we can go, but I just think as a stand, arid ~ithout the sort of,this connecting from a construction permit that the bill allows, why establishing of a site permit is a recognizable separate license the Commission offers.
I 'don't think --
my view is that compared with what we can do administratively, indeed the bill should improve that aspect of it, shouldn't it?
I think there is considerable merit with the situation of the bill and with the situation withrut doing anything.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I don't know.
I suppose we could say "aspects of."
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That would. allow each person to have his own aspect in mind.
As long as one feels that way about at least one of them.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do you have a problem with "should" Peter?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I mean, it is also true that aspects of this bill will not improve it and they in fact might affect it adversely.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: True, it is possible.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I wouldn't put farming out of NEPA in that category.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's quite true.
MR. STOIBER:
You could say aspects have the potential
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 for improving it.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY_:
I think it is true that some aspect.should improve.it and I'suspect some aspects.will affedt it the other way, but in picking out the positive ones, you are in some sense averaging the bill~--
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You are taki:ri.g'a cheerful view of the bill.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I was going to come to that same point.
I think in the section on the NEPA delegation, I do think we owe the Congres~ some, perhaps gently phrased version about assessment of the delegation.
I don't know that it has to appear right here, but I do.think somewhere in the
,o statement our being knowledgeable of it should be made.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I'm prepared to go forward it "shall", but with properly qualified statements elsewhere.
CHAIRJYIAN HENDRIE: Well; I think it is quite a fair statement that with regard to the state NEPA as to whether it is going to be a net -- it is responsive to state initiatives that say give us the authority.
You could certainly say that for it.
COMMISIONER GILINSKY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Whether at the same time it will turn out to be a more effective and timely NEPA analysis is sure a good question.
1 2
3
.4 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 COMMISSIONER GiLINSKY: I'm sure a lot of people
'have reservations ab.out intervening, so there you are..
MR. GOSStCK: 'How about rsome aspects of this bill should," and so forth, "other.may not or may have the opposite effect"?
_CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me stick to 'this, anq_ if you can* stand "should put it in.
Maybe you can turn down the corner of the page if you want to come back and argue about it.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So let's say it like it is.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Sure.
I think we have been *quite clear along the line of what our position is on th~ treatment of the NEPA thing.
You had a note ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why don't we say* the reliability?.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know, because Peter drafted that up to -replace, "to the extent that the present nuclear licensing process is becoming an impedement, the one important choice, this bill, if enacted should help."
That may be a better sentence, in fact, than the one you had.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Isn't it in fact believed abortt standardization that it should also be
-~ it is true that the aspect that you have in mind is early siting, that reliability is not the adjective.
l 2
3 4
7 8
9
- 10.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Do you mean the stability?
MR. KELLEY: Re.liability. means to tclke uncertainty
- out of the i,rocess.
- COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, that's what I w~s*
- going*to say, even it is on*early siting~
Predictability
.would be _ac~eptable.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Th_e predictability of the.
nuclear choice, or the reliabilifi of the nuclear choic~.
MR., GOS SICK: Vi,abili ty?
Is *it viable or not?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The attractiveness to'the utility was the thought, wasn't it?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
When one is maki,ng Up a national energy 'plan, assuming someone ever'.does, that actually
. use* -_. numbers in having some sense of how many plantsi tes you have, having an inventory of. the plantsites, does improve* your ability to rely on that particular set of statistics.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Oh, yow.mean the reliability in that sense?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, abi_li ty to rely.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
.The nation's ability to rely on.NEPA --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
As far as I was concerned you could use the word both ways because I thoµght as far as standardization of how you could use it in a technical sense,that the plans would be on line a greater percent of the
1 2
3 4
5
- 6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 27 of.the time and the.other choic~.you could use it in~the sense
'that'bne c6nld rely,h~avily on* it, but I~m not wedded to the wo:td.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:..,Well, it's the useability of* the nuclear optio.n or the abili'ty to exercise the usefulness.*.
. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Read the previous se'ntence again, th~ sciatch~d-oui~entence, read ~~at again.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well., the. diffi.cul ty I had with the scratched-out*senteri:ce is that I think it.says something a little different.about the present huclear licensing process than what we really wanted to say. That is, if*
instead of pro.cess it said legisla:tiv,e framework that,wou~d improve it for nie, hut I wc.mld still have to say something like, "certain features or.aspects of," because I still do have my problem about the hearing section.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, the previous sentence:
- "Congress and the Administration envision an energy policy of real choices -- among conservation, coal and nuclear in the near ' term~ !.'
What we are talking about is our ability to exercise that choice.
By the way, is coal and nuclear the right way to.say it or is it coal and uranium or coal and nuclear ene~gy.
Is nucle~r a noun?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think you are right.
It is one of those things that is;slipping in.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In the colloquial use it is
2 3
4 5
,6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
- 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 certainly going to be clear to the whole audience that hears it. It may not be classic language, but I d6n't mind.
COMMISSIONER ~ILINSKY:
I know that nuclear is a noun.
COMMISSIONER BRADEORD:
Now, it is a noun and on its way to being a verb.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do you mean. if we, put_ another "u" in it?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Should we _put in energy or uranium or something like that?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have no difficulty with*
putting it in.
MR. KELLEY:
I think that detracts.
I_ think your grammar is out wei1hing -...,.-,
COMMISSIONER GIL.IN SKY:
Nuclear a~.. noun?
MR. KELLEY:
I would go with it the way it is.
If you give it the ear.t*est/.. L.think it *passes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, back to Peter's sentence.
Aspects of this bill, I'm trying to coax you into should, I think I have got you sort of teetering, at least on center.
How bad are economy and reliability there, : *it's not great.
Economy and attractiveness?
I don't know.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have some difficulty with attractiveness.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We haven't fallen into the right
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 word.
economy?
29 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Should w.e just live with MR. KELLEY: Availability?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Availability is* all right.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You raised the question, and if we.could find. a better one, I think we could do it.
We just don't seem to have it for the moment.
Okay, at the bottom of the page you had a question 11A formal adjudicatory hearing must be... " ---
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I:.have a question and I
+/-hink.Vic's comment there is getting at the same thing, but *it really runs through* the whole paragraph.
Is it really true that the Atomic Energy Act requires a two-stage nuclear plant licensing :process?
MR. MALSCH:
I think so.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And does the Act i tse.lf contemplate a construction permit and all of that and then the operating licenstng hearing afterwards?
MR. MALSCH:
Yes.
MR. KELLEY:
That was the key i"Ssue in the old
'PRDC case back in '61.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Now, was the issue in that case whether it required it or whether it allowed it?
MR. KELLEY:
I think it was implicit;it was a
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 requirement, contemplates two steps with a more intensive requirement to step one.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That* was exactly why I was raising the question.
I don't believe I actually ever read t.hat case, but what I remember was that that was in *issue and I just didn't remember whether the court had said this is the way you have to do it.
What the UAW was saying in that case is that you have to have a one-step process.
MR. KELLEY:
No, they wanted a more definite safety finding in step one and the court said, noi a tent~tive finding is okay at step one, because you are going to have more definition in step two.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But did it also say that you have to?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't think the issue came up.
MR. KELLEY:
Marty, what is your MR. MALSCH:
I think the opinion is written in a way that presumes that's the way it had to be, namely, a two-step process.
The issue in the case was which issue you could postpone until the second step.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The statute c*ertainly lays it out, step one and step two in pretty clear shape.
I think you really have to find some words that say, "the above isn't necessary" and there aren't any words like.that.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
As long as it is clear, I don't
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 mind this language. I wasn't sure that it was ---
COMMISSIONER. GILINSKY:
Now, what about this :-:...-
do we n~ed fbrmal adjudicatory hearings?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, I think so.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Where does it say that?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is in the statute.
MR. MALSCH:
Well, the statute says hearing, but from almost the beginning, of the regulatory era in the 50's, it has always been construed as formal hearing.
And in fact, in the early 60s when the issue was challenged by a number of scholars in the field, people walked away from the he~rings convinced that the AEC was indeed right, and the Congress hasn't yet appended.
It is suppose to be. formal hearings.
So it doesn't use the word formal or on the record, that's been always the interpretation of Section 189(a).
MR. KELLEY:
Well, the exception would be, Marty, wouldn't it, when nobody intervenes.
You could. have a hearing, but MR. MALSCH:
But even there, the AEC took the.
view that an uncontested construction permit hearing was still a formal, on-the-record hearing.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, but the question is, are we free to change that?
MR. KELLEY:
My answer is that you have to have it on the record, because that's the way I read the APA
\\
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13
- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 in conjunction with the Atomic Energy Act.
It think it requires an 6n-the-record hearing.
MR. MALSCH:
There are a whole bunch of decisions which make no sense unless you presume that on-the-reco~d hearings. are required, for example,
- in the Segal case back
- in the 60's was a big challenge_to our rulemaking authority and the issue there was could we issue a rule without a formal hearing, and the court said, oh, no, a formal hearing is only for licensing,and rulemaking can have notice and comment.
Now, the presumption there was that licensing called for formal hearings.
The same is true of the amendment to the Act in 191 authorizing Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards~
It would have made no sense unless you pres*ume that Congress* understood
.hearings were on-the-record hearings.
So while the language isn't there, I think the interpretation has been understood by the Commission and the Congress so long, I doubt you could change it.
(Commissioner Bradford departed the meeting.)
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
that interpretation bere.
We are in fact, adopting CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The Commission and its predec~ssor agency have adopted it for so many years and it is embeded in such a set ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No, that's the practice.
1 2
'J '
4 5
.6 7
8
,9 10 11
,12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 The question is, do you want to confirm that here?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't think it is the question of we having the option of conf,trming or saying, no, no, it is at our option, I don't think it is in our hands any more.
That's the advi~e you are getti~g from*both the l~~al offices.
MR.* REAMER:
Language very close to this has appeared in other testimony delivered before the Congress by representatives of the Com.mission as well.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
For a long time.
MR. CASE:
Any time a citizen writes in, I send him the phamplet that says this.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I really don't think it is at the option of the Commission.
I think if we voted today to cease having adjudicatory hearings in licensing proceedings, I don't think we would have the power to do that, I think we would have an injunction out of the Circuit Court downtown on us in a matter of literally minutes and that would be that.
I don't think they could;-2inake a case *'for* us.
So I think in fact, the language is correct.
At page 5 a one in the middle of the page.
(Commissioner Bradford returned to the meeting.)
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Who, me?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do you want to leave this thing, Peter, a formal adjudicatory hearing must be held?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I don't -- it isn't a
1 2'
3 4
5*
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 question I have-~ver looked at.
I'm still having a problem, Marty, with your answer to the question I raised a minute *ago.
The reason I'm having it, and I just checked back, that Howard doesn't share y~mr.-opinion of the one-step versus the two-step process-and I don't know obviously he's I gather overseas, but he.had told you that in his estimation a one-step license could *be issued under the licensing structure*we have now.
Sometime between now and Monday, before we put the Commission on record on that analysis, I wonder if you could find a way**t~ get together with him and iron it out.
MR. MALSCH:
That's news to me.
I think we could iisue a construction permit which had within it an approval 6f the final design~ but we would still need to issue a document called an operating license before the plant can go into operation.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, but that's just a proforma CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It can't be proforma if you can demand a hearing on that at that stag,e.
MR. CASE:
That's the two stage process.
It might be a little different in the second stage, but it is a two stage process.
MR. REAMER:
This whole paragraph could be written to neutralize any particular statement about what's required and could say in terms of what's happening right now.
For
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35 example, you could say the nuclear licensing process under the Atomic Energy Act is now a two-stage one and fuhen you go on, a construction permit*is obtained -- it could easily be recast in very neutral terms.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I' have no objection to it, but if somebody asks me is a formal heaiing required, I'm ioi~g to say it is my und.erstanding that it is, because the question could.arise.
changes?
MR. REAMER:
I think that's correct.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You wil;I. make the verb MR. REAMER:
Yes,I will try to capture that paragraph and circulate it 'real quick this ~fternoon..
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, 'just say what the practice is and put it in those terms.
I don't know that you need to circulate it.
Every time we circulate a piece of paper, why another 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> goes by while we disagree over relatively minor word choices.
This thing has to be at the Committee tomorrow.
MR. REAMER:
I'll give it to the legal assistants, ah.d if they have problems they can call.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, I don't have problems with the changes.
Let's see, >~I guess I made them didn't I.
I made one and Peter made one.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You made two.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
,CHAlRMAN HENDRIE:
You are right.
Any difficulty there?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
None.
36*
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Page 6 shows that it is clean: in all-of the drafts that I have.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me just go down it quickly.
'COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There are a couple of fugures in there that I'm sure are accurate, I'm not sure -- well, I trust they are accurate.
I'm not sure wheth~r used* here they don't mislead a little.
That 20.1 months includes voluntary delays on the applicant's part?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, it would, yes.
Can't we drop the point 1 (.1)?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That 20.*l months, the point one includes projects if the applicants choose to delay?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, more importantly the 33 would include this.
- MR. CASE:
I assume it does, I don't know where the numbers came from.
booklet.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Where do they come from?
MR. REAMER:
They are from Harold Denton's little
1 2
3 4
5
'6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CASE:
Denton's task force?
MR. REAMER:
Yes.
I'assume they have been adjusted to account for factors-that would obviously 9-istort the impression they le.ave.
MR. CASE:
No, I don't believe**so.
COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY: No, they certainly have,.hot.
MR. REAMER:
They have not been adjusted to correct misimpressions?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Of course not.
MR. REAMER:
Sorry.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But what bothers me also here is that while the statements are clear enough, I think the casual listener may get the impression:these are all gathered up and I think that that's important that that be clarified in some way, because the 20 is really included in the 33 somewhere.
One way to do it would be.20 months to commence preliminary construction of site clearance activities and then another 13 months for the construction permits.
MR. CASE:* Except that's not actual in some cases.
On the average it does.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, that's right,but I think you are going to find that people are just going to add all of these numbers up, the 20, the 33, the 6.7 and the 7.
Or you could give the 33-month number and say where an LWA is granted it comes at the 20-month point.
Something
1 2
3 4
5 6
. 7 9
l'o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 like that, on the average.
. CHAIRMAN :HENDRIE:
Why don'. t we collapse some of
- these things a little*bit.
Item 1, 20 months for that activity, including 6.7 months time taken ih hearings i~ cont~~ted cases.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:*.Right.
.CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Are the drafters ready to note?
So Item 1 wo~ld ~ead the w~y it rea~s ~own to the semicolon, which ought'to be converted to a comma.and then*
go on ~-"df this time, 6.7 months was takeru,up in hearings in contested cases."
COMMISSIONER.BRADFORD:.
Let me suggest that that
.* second sentence be modified in a way that -- I don't. have the words -- but something that doesn't suggest that in fact.there was a hearing board sitting for 6 or 7 months five days a week hearing testimony..
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But there was.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's not correct.
CH~IRMAN HEND~I,E:
Weil,. that certainly is correct.
MR. REAMER:
I think the hearing might include the prehearing process ::as well, actually it.is an on-going discovery, filing of testimony.
MR. GOSSICK:
Call it.the hearing process.
MR. CASE:
The hearing phase or som~thing.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Anything like that is fine.
I
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
.10 11
- 12.
13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wouldn't want to give the fmpression that this was like.an anti-£ru~t case..
- CHAIRMAN -HENDRIE:
O~ay, what language would you use, Bill?
MR*. STOIBER: *l'f~k'i~~('* up :hearing procedures in con-tested cases*.'",
MR~ REAMER:
How about the "hearing phase"?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I tell you, I would start with*-.>the 33 months, I mean, _that's really your big number, the construction permit.'* And then say "where an LWA is requested it comes at 'the 20-month :point."
MR.* REAMER:
Well, one 'is-definit~ly bi°gger; but the other does tend to cqme first.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well', it is not the fact that it is bigger ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I was going to help that out by chucking *--.noting at the end of the construction permit, saying, that this time would include the 20 months to obtain an LWA where one was.applying for it.
That would qe_ ;:tAe* _tfig *-.i1:q:~*:J0:r-
- 33.
COMMISSIONER.GILINSKY:
Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay,,are we clear on one?
MR. REAMER:
I would be more clear if you were to read it one more time.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Take out the point one; just
1 2,
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 because it suggests *the precision of one part 200 which is beyond, I'm afraid~.even though it*does shorten the time a bit.
"20 months elapsed between the docketing of applicant' environmental inforrnati,on to NR_C and NRC authorization for *.
- the applicant to comm~nce preliminary construction.and site-*
clearanc~ activities, this tim~. includes 6.7 months taken up in *the hearing phase in contested cases," or it could be: "in the hearing phase contested cases; taken up in the hearing phase of II ( 2) 33 months represented the period between the docketing of an applicant's safety information to NRC and NRC authorization of a cionstruction permit."
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's _see, they docket them both at the same time don't they?
be?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, not nE;Cessarily.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Typically, don't they?
MR. KELLEY: Less than half the time.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And how far apart would they MR.
MULLER:
It would be about.6 months.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
With the environmental one corning earlier?
MR. CASE:
Either way.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I guess I think it is
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 worth saying, because I think the relation of one starting point to the other is significant, because again, I think one doesn't want to get the *notion CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It's better to -- b~cause they really are both important an.d they ~~en' t linearly contained one within the other in quite the simple way that 20 plus *13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Don't you have.to have some of the safety information before you get the LWA?'
MR. CASE:
Sure, site suitability, yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:* Now, would that cover the environmental report or would that come ---
MR. CASE:
You send it in early,~you are ~equired to have that information at the same time.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You see, it could be.
So one important thing is that where a utility is trying to get on the site with a shovel as early as possible, it takes 20 months from the time they could get that kind of information to us and the time that we let them have an LWA.
Another piece of information is that it takes 33 monts from the time they get appropriate information to us until we issue a construction permit.
Then what I would add as a tag line is that although it is not -- that that time ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Generally includes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Generally covers time for issuance of a limited work authorization if one is requested.
And I think
I
' I 1
2 3
. 4 5
6 7
8 9
10, 11 12 13 14 15 16.
17 1.9 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 the word "generally'cov.ers. is important, because, *as I say, it isn't a nice clean~-
COMMISSIQNER*GILINSKY:
Let me-ask yo~_ one more thing.
The* relations of a11
- this time or the' amount.of all
.not the iotal time.
In other words, even if therewe:i;e no '
licenSirig process they would not have~-
it wo~idn't be often
.running per day, I would think.
systems?
)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I wouldn*' t bet on that.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: When do they order their CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
About a year before these filings.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
A. year befor.e the filings?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE; ~es. And if, they dec~de to go for a plant,and get an architect-engineer. lined up if they used one before that.
You see, to accumulate the information for the filings takes -"'.'" well, -the environmental. stuff, you have to make up your.mind you are going to do it and it takes a year to get it together.
Now, if you didn't have a licensing process they would.be in there digging at that point.
COMMISSIONER GiLINSKY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, Item 2 would read: "33 months represented the period between the docketing of an applicant's safety information to NRC and NRC authorization of a constructio permit" -- then I would go on and say, "this time includes 7
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 months tn the hearing phase ~n contested cases and also
~enerally covers bhe time to obtain a limited work authoriz~tion where one is requested."
COMMISSIONERGILINSKY:
You might refe::r-ence the,previo s 20 months, I mean -- or reference Item 1, sbmething like -thai.
Now, what would you cite. as the time on,the critical path, the 20 months?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
Yes, it's the 20 months.
If the construction permit follows in a reasonal:>le time, it is not a pacing item.
He is able to go ahead in a reasonable way.
You might get a mild argument from some applicants, but basically it is the 20 months.
- coMMISSIONER GILINSKY-: 'Ba?ically it is the 20 months.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, plus the preparation time to the extent that that would ---
MR. CASE:
Could I make one more suggestion on this paragraph.
You ought to tie if to a recent staff study, because you know, if I looked at the averages today they might be a little different.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
- Yes, let's reference that study.
MR. KELLEY:
Is this the Denton Report?
MR. CASE:
Sir?
MR... KELLEY: These numbers are out of the Denton Report?
1 2
d3 4'
,5 6
7 8'
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44, M~-
CASE:
I a 9sume.
'CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The,Denton Report.
MR. REAMER: I have it right now,,"in a recent staff studyf we found," ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, good.
,MR. REAMER:
.Could :i: have the thought* after the. "in general" portion of what now is the 2, the last spot in two.
CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE:
The words would be, "and generally covers the 20 months required to obtain a limited work authori-zation_where one is requested."
MR. REAMER:
Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Good, then Item 3 would be that we had spent 7 man years on the safety review.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Wh~t' s* the significance of that?
Is that good, bad, too high or ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Oh, it gets on to the thing that --
here ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I think reducing staff time is not all that important here, because the amount of money expended on staff time compared to the amounts involved that are gained or lost in the.building o'f the plant turns out to be pretty insignificant.
And if you thought you could save overall time by spending more staff effort you would do it.
MR. CASE:
I never knew this was an objective of the
1
- 2.
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
- 10.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 bill~ to reduce the time it would take.
- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes, T would just drop that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Drop which?
COMMISSIONER <;;!LINSKY:
,The fact that. 7 man years were experided.
I :rn~an, that has to do with, what your safety standar.ds are and so on, I,mean, you know, maybe_ that's* right, mayb~ t~at~s wrong.
~t just raises anqt~~r whble burich of issues..
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What do you think, Peter?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I guess tha:t I- __.;_ Well,. I don't understand wha_t it adds, so -my inclination would. be to drop it, but I don~t care very strongly unless some~bdy_wants to gather staticti,cs.
COMMISSIONER GTLINSKY: Well, then':I would say*
I would put it somewhere else and say ---
MR. REAMER: It. already appears on page 13 _.:*.i1I:rL.the context _of the sentence it says that in one case involving four proposed plants the staff manpower expended in safety review averaged 2. 5 :mariy~~s*, as_ comp'a~ed *with 7. O man:ryear average for custom designs~.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Fine.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's in a deleted section.
Take it out here, I don't care~
MR. CASE:
I don't understand why that whole subject is in the testimony, to tell you the damn truth.
1
2 3
4 5
6 T
8 9
10' 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes, frankly, I would take it out.
MR. CASE:.
The purpose of standardization is to get the review off the critical path.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And it may well. be that you want to --*I* doubt it -- but that you w~nt to spend mo~~ staff effort.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is more than that.
It is to stabiize the review.
And in fact, if people had to choose between stablizing and getting it of.f the critical path, I bet you a cookie, they would stick with.stablizing.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think that's right.
Also, I think it is confusing, you are switching units from months to manyears.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's take out the 7 man years, good.
COMiUSSIONER GILINSKY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
How about the '."quest.tons we:re 1 asked b1"
- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would take that out too ---
MR. REAMER: It seems like it should follow the same precedence.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, now what do we do with the last paragraph?
1 2
3' 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 1,3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 COMMISSIONER GJ;LINSKY:
- Now,. wait a minute.
I think that --
I would put in some statement saying that in re6ent years, these* times have been affected by the utilities own schedule, therefore, they are not necessarily indicative of what this -*process can do.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay, now,*how would this thing read?
- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: This is a proposal, it would fit with your earlier comments about there are some things which are just not sus_ceptible to legislative-administrative solutions.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
This.would be language which would replace the paragraph starting "These data," right?
MR. REAMER:
Well, it could be inserted this way you could say While these data are to some extent affected by a Qtility's own plans, they do suggest the two objectives could be... "
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I think it is important to say that in recent years utilities have slowed down the rate of which they are moving.
Is that not right, Ed?
MR. CASE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And that these numbers are not necessarily indicative of ---
MR. CASE:
He was proceeding on the assumption that we called those up, at which we didn't.
.1 2
3 4
- 5 6
7 8
9
,10 11 I *12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 MR. REAMER:
Yes, but my change here was intended to c6rrect that earlier.
- COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:*
But you have already made a.change heret haven't you?
COMMIS'SI01'JER GILINSKY; Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:'* I.ha~e*: no problem with that change, except I guess I'd say ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: *Read it, because it didn't seem to scan to :me,_down the rn.1.ddlei.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:,
"To a certain extent.utilities have been slowing down plant construction because conservation efforts have ten_ded* to push back," I would say, "the time in which power for. the plants is needed."
Or one could say uncertainties about low growth, or COMMISSIONER BRADFO'.IU):
I would have said falling demand.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
.Or falling dema.nd,. or uncertainties about demand.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is not the uncertainties, it is the fall -t;hat has pushed back the time.
If it were just uncertainties it would be going forward.
. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I think it is uncertainty~::-:*.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it is uncertainty.
It is less this year than you thought it would be and_now you are in a great puzzle over what to use for future years.
1 2
3 4
5 p
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well,. that's right, but your I
decision to defer is based on the realization that you won't need the, r:,lant.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You won't know.if you will need*the plant.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, it is an immediate dropoff in the plant.
MR. CASE:
But, this also includes pedple slowdowns, they don't know what the hell to do, so they kind.of ---
COMMISSIONER aRADFORD:
Yes, but what th~y are really saying is, once I thought I needed this plant in 1982 and now I know that I can get along without it until 1984.
MR. CASE:
But before that they go through a process of "I'm not so sure" and say we will push the licensing ahead.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Do you mean what they may be*saying is once I thought I needed it in '82, but I always knew I could get by without it and now that finance is getti~g difficult or we have got construction problems or something, we are just going to get by without;it.
MR. CASE:
Something like that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Suggestion for language?
"Slowing down plant construction because... "
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
".. the demand
- uncertainties have postponed... "
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think that's excellent.
1
- 2.
3 4
5 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 MR. CASE:
Well, it's not the plant construction.
It is prosecuting the application, because you are r~ally tal~ing ~bout times of prosecuting the application here.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
"... and uncertainties ha~e.
postponed... "
solves your forward or back problem ---
have postponed th,e time at which power plant is needed COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Close.
~* thought to. be needed... "
CHAIRMA:N HENDRIE:
postponed the time at which the plant is thought to be needed~'*'
.COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is there a period then?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: ;Yes.
CHAIRMAN*HENDRIE:
Mine didn't have.a period.
Now, this starts a new sentence then. *"To the extent... "
good, that*':solves my problem.
"To the ext.ent that it is the regulatory process itself which slows down the construction of a plant.
Li~ensiµg reform should seek to reduce the amount of time that the licensing proces.s is on the critical path of the facility's construction."
I have no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why not say: "... is actually holding up the plants construction."
with nuclear reliability.
Critical path goes CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What's the suggestion?
1 2
3 4
I 5
i 6
7 8
9
,'.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20*
21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It is holding up the plants
,construction -- is' actually holding up the plants. construction.
MR. REAf:'.lER:
Well, the concept of' *~critical *path" was introduced on the. previpu§,spage, so I assume you don't like it
, there either.
CHAI;RMAN HENDRIE:
I'm lost with regard to,the change to the crrange.
"To the extent that it is the regulatory _process itself which COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
constrtiction of a plant... "
II slows down.* thei CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
II licensing reform shoul~ seek to reduce the ainount pf time... ".
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, seek.* to II the regulatory process itself, whi.ch.1:1,o'J,,ilirup construction of a Plant, licensing reform should seek to reduce... "
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Instead of talking about "reduce" why don't we talk about improving the process in some fashion~
MR. CASE:
".. slows down construction.. *." is too narrow.
It should be ",... }.increases the time necessary to.
get a plant on line... "
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
- Why don.' t we just recast the whole thing and say,* "the objective of the regulatory reform is,*to.~reduce the licensing contribution to the 1!3ad time... 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, right.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 52 COMMISSIONER.GILINSKY:
That'.E? one idea.
You are introducing other ideas~
I would say, "*.*. ~ one of the.
objective~* of regulatory refo'rm,.is' to reduce the lead time to build-; the plant..* ".
I think it is just one of the objectives.
CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE:
- Okay, we will_retain the second sent.ence down through'
- 11 *** the.plant... "
and. theh say, ".. one
\\
_of the objectives to licensing reform should be to... "
what was it?
".*.. reduce.. :~.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
II to reduce the amount of time... ".
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
12 Now, if the drafters have got that clear I would
- 13.
- be surpri~ed.
May I read?
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. REAMER: Please.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, instead of "These data" one starts:
"To a certain extent utilities have been slowing down plant ccmstruction because demand :*yn~certaiii.t.:.fes :* have
- ----- :**.. --,,..__.--~-. --
.c-postponed the time at which power from"the plant is thought to be needed, to the extent that it is the regulatory process itself which slows down construction of a plant.
One of the
- ogjectives of licensing reform should be... 11 MR. CASE:
You put a broad interpretation on construction, really meaning the whole cycle.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I was going to return to your point.
I think,- if I may modify my own words here, "To a
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 certain extent these figures reflect some slowing down of the pro~ecution of the license applicaiion of the utilities, because of uncertainties in demand projections."
- That's merely a thought'. because it. goes back to these numbers~*
MR. CASiji *rt all deal~ with construction itself starts.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
So to a certain extent CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, all right.
If you *can find any place, Bill, on the page to make the.change I would suggest, "To a certain extent, these data reflect the fact that ~tilities... " et cetera.*
Okay?
MR. REAMER:
Uh-huh.*
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, see if you can write that in and we will see where we go from there.
".. utilities have been slowing down plant construction because deman uncertainties:have postponed the time at which power... "
--- better make it "a plant" we have got a little singular plural problem ~nd that may help, "
is thought to be needed to the extent that it is the regulatory process itself which slows down the construction of a plant.
One of the objectives of licensing reform should be to reduce the amount of time that the licensing process is on the critical path of the facility ',s construction."
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You wouldn't prefer" is in
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 54 the way of facility's construction.. " or is that not the*
same.
MR. REAMER:
How about delay.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
- I think.for the audience you*
a:r;:-e going to be addre1:>sing th.i.s critical path.is going to be well enough und~rs~ood and less confusing~ actually, than talking about in :the way of.
MR. CASE:
I really think it is pretty bad, because it talks about plant constructiori and they are not at all on the critical path after construction starts.
Okay?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
"... which delays the construction... "
MR. KELLEY:
"Delays the beginning of constuction~?
MR. CASE:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's just say,. ::,.'.'_ *.. delays the construction... " okay.
It can be read either way and it includes the meaning.
I don't have room on my page to make any more changes.
Onward.
CGr1MISS-TONER BRADFORD:
Yes; except I guess the OGC's comments relate to the specific comments, not necessarily the general comments.
I just sort of get off the boat at this point.
I don't think that the concepts involved::in this bill really are res judicata at all.
The opportunity for hearing
1 3
4 5
6
',' '7' 8
9.'
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 standard isn't anything that. any treatise on res judicata
. would recog'nize.
What thi~ bill does is not.what *we. are
- s*ayin:gh._ere that*it does.
We say that issues resolved in earlier proceedings shoul.d be accorded* some presumption of the 'construction, and that's prefectly.true.
- What the bill
. says th.a~ the_ issues that it cquld have r:aised in the earlier proceedings must now b~ presumed to be resolved.
'COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It depends what you are
- referring to her:e.
You are speaking of: the section which says that somebody had an opportunity to raise that, I gather, and should be established in the. early siting.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, bu.t. you can't _get away from the 'interplay.
You*are right, but in the next two paragraphs on it goes on to finality concept is incorporated in tnree features, but it is also incorporated in the hearings
-that are available with regard to plants involved in the issue.
.COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY:.
I would say the important concept here is to push-the industry anq. get as much work
.done before* it starts. building the planL rather than in the
!nitiAl: concept.
MR. REAMER:
Yes-~ I understand your comment.
It was that this is,::.;t 1Q!'.5J narrow when compared with the bill, because the bill would limit future litigation of issues that could have been raised,. whereas this is cast in terms of what was raise.
]_
2 3
56 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
This describes what to me is on~ :pf the most unreasonable features of the bill.in yery reasonable. terms.
If *this*is ~hat the bil'i said, I'd(h'tr,te, 4**
- much *1ess trouble with it than I do.
i... '
5 6
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I suppose it is a clarifying
~echnical. change iri that seqfion~
MR. KELLEY:
My treatise on res judicatasays that 8
.if you ei'ther *raised it before.or you could have raised it 9
before 10 11 13
,14 15 16 17 18
.19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But you had to be ip the hearing, you had to be part of the hearing.
MR. KELLEY:
Yes, the same parties,.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes, but this' isn't the case there isit?
MR. KELLEY:
You could broaden it to that.extent.
But the concept it coftld have raised is in res judicata.
COMMISSIONER.GILINSKY: But it is not the same person.
In other words, *it could *be somebody else l*0 years later and ---
MR. REAMER:
There is a limited portion of res judicata in which it can.be used in a situation in which the parties*
are not identical.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, let me :make a suggestion.
There was criticism.-;.up from ELD on this section, fflso remarking that it seemed difficult to start out this section with this -- with the. finality concept since that was --
1...
.1 2
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11, 12 13 14
'15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 since the no prior opportunity test COMMI$SIONER GILINSKY:
Are*we'clear on.what that means?
COMM.ISSIONER. BRADFORD:
No pr,ior oppbrtuni ty°?.
. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:*, Well,
- let's get t6 that.i.n a moment.
delet. *from there over to the start of the paragraph *9n page 8 "This finality concept... "
Now, I ne(;'!d a new lead~in(*. -..
. sentence.
Remember that. we have* Just been taik
.. i,rig about
~etting off 'the critical path and I would sugge~t a lead-i~
sentence which start.s ou,t, "To accomplish the ob~ective.of reducing the amount of time that the licensing process is on the critical path or facility construction,'as well as to
- /
pq)vide increased stability. 2of.. *the~** liceii.sj;rig process... " ---
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'll buy almost anything you put in there that is along that thought.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Comma, and then I want to get on and ~ay, "... ihere are three principai.features of the bill... "
okay?
And now I'm over here and I want to name the.features" that help get youooff the critical path and reduce the amount of tim~ you are on the critical p~th and help stablize the process.
Except I would make number one early site reviews and number two standardization of reactor designs, and number three the combined construction permit operating license.
1 2
- 3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
. 22 23 24 25
- 5s (Mr. Kelley nods in the affirmative.)*
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Because if.you do it as the
Yes, but.that doesn't ~peak to his lead-ip sentence.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No, I under.stand.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And you are getting to that on the next page.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, what I would do is I would throw in the combined construction permit operating license in the standardization and I would say, "... including the feature where final designs are available.* " 1' I mean, that's really a sub-part of the. standardization.'
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, because it isn't tied to standardization.per s~.
I'm sure it will be used.fbr the* most part that way, but you could come final on a custom design, at least in principle.
Why do you want to bring th~ state NEPA thing in ~t this point?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I wouldn't.
I would preserve the notion that the three features of the bill are really ea;lt sitifigi standardization and the state NEPA.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
Why do you count -- I don't understan..
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, okay.
MR. REAMER:
It depends on your approach. If you are
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 ld 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
. 59 approa.ching the.problem ---
CHAIID'I.AN HENDRIE:. There are other'features of the bill, you know, if you wanted to say this bill.has 12.or 10 or 7 or something like that, significant features and list them, but I. don't think you could cont'e
- out three.
Here I was going to say, here* are three.*features that have to do ~ith r~ducing ti~e on. ~he critical path and improving the stability of the licensing*process.
I don't know whether we can think of any more, but -- and they ought to be three main features, okay, or some equivalent or to.
suggest that there are some other things that, come along that are less of a --- can you think of any more that contribute.to those things, by the way?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, it is not standardization of reactor design, *it is providing for licensing of standard design, isn't.it, well before construction.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
True, but if you are trying to make a list, one thru three, and you are* going to go ahead and talk about.the thing~
All you are looking 'for her~. is some identifyin~ phrase to go with the 1, 2,* 3.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, it *should be stated accurate~
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, to be perfectly accurate you many need some sentences.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, there are different kinds
60 1
of reviews.
You are talking about a construction permit and 2
operating license, an early site license review 'and your 3
standard design iicense.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Isn't that problem really 5
, one that rests with the draiters, at least -- I mean, there 6
is no real~doubt that we are ju~t frying to get a flow here 7
and we are not really saying that these are the three 8
9 10 11
- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 primary features of the bill.
They are the three features that are relevant to the context.
MR. REAMER:
Well, early site review would not embody an approval that would permit you to construct a reactor.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes,.but you are getting a license.
MR. KELLEY:
No, I dofr':t think you are.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Or a permit, or are ~ou getting a decision.
- MR. KELLEY:
You are getting a decision.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In principle you can get a decision now.
I think the permit is going to be regarded as substantially more binding.
So yours would be something like, "(l} early site reviews and site permits.* (2) licensing of standardized reactor designs... "
MR. REAMER:
Well, licensing wouldn't be technically complete, because there would be a situation in which you would
1 2
3 4
.s 6
61 have approval of a design that wouldn.' t involve the license and. perhaps maybe an approval of standardized~
Th.at' s y,hat the bill:sp~aks.of, approval of standaidized deiigns.
~QMMISSIONER GILINSKY:.Put it in.
CHAIRMAN*HENDRIE:
Okay.
"... *and... "
- .:.._ well, how about the combined*
7 construc\\::ion p~rmi t operating license.
a Now,_ the next sentence, Peter, in that* paragraph on g
- page 8 -- delete the abortive try to--* then the sentence 10 11 12 13*
14, 15 16 17 18
- 19 20 2.1 22 23 24 25 II speaking very generally,.,however,. each of these three
- features contemplates early regulatory decisions that would
- be accorded a presumption of correctness in subsequent administrative proceedings."
Now, I don't think that's a problem, that's not the problem you have right?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right, and especially now that*we have *9otten rid of the paragraph that was really
- cau*s irnJr.i:he,::.problem.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, let's see.
Would somebody read me my new l_ead-in sentence so I know w:hat to do with tbes~ecoftd;concept because I -ha~e to make* it balance.
MR. REAMER:
Here's what I wrote down.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think you want to drop "second concept."
You want to start with, " *.. _the licensing process by its nature... "
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
- Yes*, but the early siting
1 2
3
,, 4 5
6
'7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14
- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 62 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Now, you are going over'these things.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I* see*, okay. Good, you. are right.
I had gotten f\\lyself sort of. crossways in the track and thought we were about',to*plunge into NEPA reviews.
Good.
Now, how do we want to carry in to it?
COMMISSIONER G,ILINSKY:
I would just start, "
the licen~ing process... ri right here.
with MR. REAMER:
The two sentences that would be deleted by that are certainly captured in your lead-in.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Right.
That's a good point.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is that okay with everybody?
The third *line from the bottom you start, "The licensing process to be better structured... 11 Nobody seemed to,have much difficulties, minor changes by Peter and me down below that'looks fine.
Can we leap to the bottom of page 9*.
Oh, wait a minute.
Yes, I think we can leap to the bottom of page 9.
Now, there was a sentence about intervenor funding:
"This is a complet and controversial idea.worth.trying... "
Peter's suggestion is to delete:'.i t-and to talk about our appeals board has frequently contested and so on and so on.
Peter, your problem was that the complex and controversial idea was too grudging and COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'm having some difficulty with the new proposal on account of ---
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
How would you feel about putting the other sentence back in and then going in to what
- I_have here, because I think I re~1ly delet~d that*one and I have just decid~d to replace it with something, but I wouldn't mind leaving it there and then running in to*what
- I put.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well,, let me see.
"... dUr appe~ls bo~rd is certainly attested.. ~"
do they frequenlty attest or COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I can produce a fair list.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Are there an array of occasions or do we keep seeing the same quote.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There*are four. or.five that I can list.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There are a number of separate citations by the appeals board?
MR. MALSCH:
Yes.
COMMIS~IONER'BRADFORD:* If you would prefer" s~veral occasions... " that's fine.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't suppose you would like "longer".
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't mind.
on CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see, I think the comments back where we are saying, "... now, h~re's what the Commission
1 2
3 4
5 6
,7*
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 thinks about this... "
this is just a quick citation of these principle-:features and then say, here's what we think about them.
Tha.t language seemed all.right.
Let's see, how much toning down*. can I encourage here.
. COMMISSIONER, B 0
RA.DFORD:
Okay, I see what your probl~m is theie.
I don't ~ean ~hat th6se as~ects df.the case that thi.staff-presents ~ren't presented fai~ly and maybe it would be a good thing to get that word out of there.
Because what I meant:.:to say is that iri a case wh-ere:_ there ar~ several different perspe6tive~ ~o be argued, you can't expect -- and the perspectives ~re inconsistent with each other.
You can't expect the same people to do justice to a number of different clashing ideas with equal purview.
But I see your problem.
MR. CASE:
I would like fully better.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I don't even mind dropping the adverb.
In fact what I wbuld do is to start that sentence ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Can you stand to do without the
- sentence?
~!Note that the Appeals Board has frequently attested... "
and just go on.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Because I think the point is important, that is, I think I was asked in my own confirmation and I know I have been asked testifying on the subject::.before,
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 65
. Why should we f~:nd) intervenors, what's your s'taf f for.
We are paying Commission salari~s to.represent the public interest, why does ~nybo~i* else have to.
What I.;would::,suggest would be a sentence which simply said our staff and,the applicants, *cannot be expected:-
to present all possible views in* al,l of om;, c*ases.
I I
MR. KELLEY:
Do y~u want, "pr~~ent all possible.. "
"Contra~ting"?
Reasonable?
Possible is far out it seems trr,me.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Where are we?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
"Our staff and the applicants cannot be expected to fully present all reasonable views in all of our cases."
MR.. REAMER:
contrasting views?~
all.reasonable.views... " 'or" COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is "contrasting" better?
All right.
In any case, drop *those four words and the sentence now starts, "Our staff..... "
all
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And it-would read:
the applicants.~."?
"Our staff and COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And then what?
MR. REAMER:
".. cannot be expected fully to present all contrasting views in all cases."
MR. KELLEY:
Strike the *"all" before "contrasting",.
and say,."contrasting views in all cases."
I think that was
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66
~ ltttle awkward.
MR. REAMER:
Would the introductory thought: "~... in conte~ted cases our staff... "?
Would that be helpful?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know whether we are improving things or-making them worse.
Before we delve further into this, let me stop and check the schedule affair.
Wheri could you come back?
Vic's going to have to
.leave in another 10-15 minutes.
What does your afternoon look like?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I won't be here tomorrow.
I plan to use the afternoon just to finish off my own statement in* light of what we have gotten done here.
What I.*think would work best for me is if we come back late in the afternoon, that way I can read what I have written and get that retyped out there while we are working in here.
But I would also like to leave at 4:15, so.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would have to leave around 5:00.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I guess what we ought to do is plan to come back at 2:00.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
How about 2:30?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'm sorry, 2:30.
See if we can manage that.
Let's go for the last 10 minutes and clear up.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 I
11 1-12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 67 Up here, I know the point you are trying to make~ but I'~ a little worried about the sentence.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What if we just cut it all
- back and say, ".. this is a complex idea, but... " and then say _something more positive in that ~n idea was framed ---
COMMISSIONER.BRADEORD:
It is weaker than I would like.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's* what I said, say.
something more positive.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, but there are reasons, I take it -- it just didn't seem to me that I was making this any more affirmative:
It is certainly less extensive than our discussion of the other issues.
- Joe's having difficulty with one sentence in it and-~-
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The last sentence?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, " *. the our staff,.and the.
applicants cannot... " that middle sentence.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, I'm afraid it is getting worse.
MR. REAMER:
You could substitute for that the rationale that the Appeal Board used in arriving at its decision.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, but that's a different point, that is, the Appeals Board has its reasons, but that is not really -- they are not endorsing intervenor funding.
They are just saying that intervenors are helpful.
MR. REAMER:
I take it, though, that's what the first
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
\\
\\
\\
.and s~cond sentences on 10 *go. ~b.
68 CDMMISSIONER*BRADFORD:
No, the second*senterice goes to this point* that as* I *said I. h'ad been questi.o*n on b*efore, and that is ---.
MR. REAMER:
Bµt that's a, reason.to permit inte:i;-vention.
in fhe first.pl~ce.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But*the other question has to do with 'sort of the rhetoric of*. the. taxpayer's, dollar. *. We are paying you people to make. 'sure that *everybody is represented.
-Why*should we*pay somebody else to do it as well.
MR. KELLEY:. I think where. you are right-~_:_-
'J;'he'. point. I think tha.t ought t0
- be made is that the* wa,¥ you first wrote the sentence, I 1 would.say, is a departure from an official Commission position of two years ago, because you are turning 1own fundings-- the idea was, do we need-intervenors* in'order to make safety determinations.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But they.are all done.
MR:. 'KELLEY:
Well, no.
Now, the way you originally wrote it, I would say that is i departur~- from.the earli~r position, and perhap~
properly _so.
I'm not argui~g for the earlier one, I'm just noting the fact that I think it is.
If you put in a phrase like "fully presents" it seems to me_ that's a notch below, and at the same time an endorsement that would be seen as less of a shaDp departure, and yet as a substantive argument
l 2
- 3.
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in fav6r of do{n~ it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
This. is. what, now?,....
MR. KELLEY.:
Well,* it. could.we read where we ended *,up there?,
69 COMMIS~IONER BRADFORD:.
"Our staff and the applic.ants cannot be expected fully to present coritr'asting.views in* ail
- of our cases."
MR. KELLEY: Yes, I *happen to agree with that.
And I wouldn't read that necessarily that there were reputiiation of two years ago, I guess it comes to the fact that Mr.
Kennedy isn't here and ---
COMMISSIONER _BRADFORD:
I wouldn't. be. in favor of intervenor funding myself if I didn't believe that ther:e were some situations in which the Commission its elf can'*t fully articulate views that don't mesh and that there*coUld be
_different positions we could possibly take.
But the proposition isn't just that intervenors would be valuable and therefore we* should give them money.
.MR. ;::KELLEY: No.
CHA&RMAN HENDRIE:
Some of the points that are not coming out, the amended language that has been proposed has as.many peculiarities *as the original did.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What is it.that is coming out of the middle sentence?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The implication that the staff
1 2
3 4
5*
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
.17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sh9uld have,:,contrasting views.
- COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Oh, okay..
.
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And that 'th;i.s isn.' t always 70 possibl~, therefore, you need intervenors in the party.*
MR. CASE:. Why don '.t you just say llthe,:i:i'taff", because you know the ~pplicants are not taxpay.ers* money ano. it doesn't meet what you are trying to re$po'nd to,* I do11' t. think.
MR. 'STOIBER:
Cani~ you talk in terms about representin interests* rather:~;than presenting views.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, the problem, I think yes, irtte~ests are there too.
. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why not throw in something II which are i~portant to*a sound Commission desision."
Something like that.arid qualify it th~t ~ai COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: If you will let me take a whack at it during t];le break, it may be that the two sentences will serve this point better than one.
Something along the line that in some cases there are a number of different reasonable views and in such cases our staff cannot be.
expected to fuliy present justification to a number of instances.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I had hoped to shorten it a little if possible some place.
Onward.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Could I::1ask one question that
1*
2
,3'
- 4
- s, 6*
7' 8
9 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18*
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7i wouid'.:help me a iot.
There,,i,s a section inserted by the *staff,-- excuse.me -
by OGC, I guess,
,_'.'.:Modified H~aring Procedures" at the bottom of the.p~ge, which.domei.out.as expressing a preference for return to NRC current.practice for the.hybrid hearings as-suggested by tha bill should not be enacted.
That ~as the
- point r was *;going to stressvvery--:;strongly,in my separate statement that in. fact, it is *the eommissioh Is position then I
c~~ react iccordingly,.but that certainly is a departure from the statement as it was up to now and it,'would encompass a point that I thought of making on my own.
MR. KEDLEY: That's.ari opt suggestion.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:*.Vic, what's your view. on the hybrid review?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it is a-bad idea.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So you would prefer to come back.
to the present practice?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it ought to be given a try and we *can do one of two t,hings at this point.
We sit here as a quorum and you qould either *adopt this language on the two to one basis ---
COMMISSIONER.GILINSKY: Where is this?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Top of page 11.
Take out "here again"
l 2
3, 4
5 L,
6
- 1 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
- 20.
21 22 23 24 25 72 COMM,ISSIONER BRADFORD:
.If_ you do that you will have q co*nsiderable problem at *the beginning of this in::terms of how,to state what this testimony represents~
CHAIRMAN. HENDRIE:. Why?
- COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, because -- you would
.just haveprobiems.with the sentence afterwards saying Commissioner Kennedy wasn.' t; here wh~n it was shaped.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, we. have already said,; amply at the be.ginning. that everybody is likely to have individual views to present, and you know, if *Dick were here* he would vote and we.could divide two-two on the point.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You see, the next st~p of the P,roblem in.the process is where the trouble is going to come.
We will.go before a hearing in the Senate so:rnetime in June, Dick will be back, and we will wind :up giving a*different Commis.sion posi:tion *.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I was go1ng to*say there are two aiterri~tlye~f> on this particular piece.
We. could either
. say, '.'as. drafted" which would represent a decision at this table on a~2-1 basis that the propose4 language would -be accepted, or we could say simply here the Commission is divided as to whether this concept should be tried or whether it should be removed from the legislation.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think that's safer, because otherwise you get in a situation of having told the House that
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 g,
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73,
Co;mmission prefers and then you, go back to the Senate and ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'm fairly sure if 'nick 'were here that he would go in that direction.
I *see some nods from his assistant that ---
MR. KELLEY:
His' message to us_ was to support the.
bill.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't we put in here, language then, instead of that last sentence, instead of saying,' "here
,again," etcetera, we would say, ".. here the Commission is divided... " and then go on to ---
MS. ARON:
Do you think it is relevant that the Senate will probably be considering next fall changes in the Administrative Procedure Act, the section that provides tor adjudicatory hearing, to modify it.SO',tha.t*.:leg;i.Islati~e,tJ(pe hearings will become the standard rather than CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I certainly think it is germane, but on the point where all of us recognize that that proposal is in hand and will be debated and argued about, in due time we will see.how APA comes out modified or not.
In the meantime; I think Peter and Vic feel pretty strongly that we ought to stay with the adjudicatory hearings.
I would kind of like to try the hybrids and see how they go.
I'm not sure how it would turn out as a matter of fact.
But I would like to see it tried and I think it does have some benefit when we impose those procedures on the states, because
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
. 25 74 I think the states -- well, i:;ome of them will want adjudicatory procedures and oth_ers,
- you know, will be annoyed if they are mandated by us._ So I guess it is a mixed bag.
W-i11 the drafters please work some language saying,
- here the Commission is divided and it ip a significant po"int.
I just want to 90 back to page 10,and settle a little drafting.
(Commissioner Gilinsky departed.)
Okay, you are going *to work on the top o"f page lQ.
When you do that, Peter, look over at page 18, bottom, recognizing that on 18 the Commission is giving its view in more detail on the specific features, at the bo~tom of-9, top c~
of 10 it is in principle a very summary mentioning of the item.
If there is more detailing, it might go better.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Would you be comfortable with this thought*if it appears back in ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we can help avoiding the cumbersomeness of somehow implying that the staff and the applicant really ought to have contrasting views.
Does that mean that?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, that's not the point that I have to make.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Then the only other thing I would want to clear up here, page 10 starts in the middle of the page, "I have already mentioned the essential features... "
okay.
1 2
3 4
5, 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2.0 21 22 23 24 25 75 "Let me briefly describe *the Commission's position on each of these features... " and we promptly start in with 1;:wo features that have not had the honor of mention h~retbfo~e.
So okay, a drafting problem, right?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let
- r:ne slip.that paragrctph around to go ~fter the.word "pr~ctice~ on page 11.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, what I would prefer'to do is just avoid the little. difficulty that we had ~entioned..
"Now let me briefly describe the Commission's position on th~se and othet feature~ ~f th~ bill.~
Okay, how about that?
If we can do that, then I don't think we have any difficulty down through "Early Site Review" on page. 11..
Drafters *to fix that "divided Commission" and we can start with "Early Site Reviews".
(Whereupon, the meeting was recessed at 12:05 noon and resumed the meeting at 3:00 plm.)
I 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
- 76 (Ma:y 18, 1978, 3: 00 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, back to-wprk.
COMMISSIONER B.RADFORD:
Oh, I forgot something that I. owe you.
- '(Commissioner Bradford departed the room_. priefly and returned. )
COMMISS+ONER BRADFORD:
Th.is. is the intervenor funding.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Jolly good show.
.COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It really doesn.' t matter* to me where it goes, if we can solve the probl~m by dropping one sentence.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You w~re working fast, werent' you.
-Where does this go, Ed?
- . MR. CASE:
It is after the numbers.
MS. HODGDON:
Top of page 6.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You have got dimensions in every sentence here.
. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
To the first three, I know.
MR. CASE:
Because we are talking about the long averages or.LWAs* and CPs.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I thought it was better in the original.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
So did I.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You mean you did a bad job just so the original would look better?
l 2
3 4
5.*
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, no.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.:
Where does. th°j_s
- language go?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD.:
Where *did we stop?
.MR. MALSCH: Top of page 10.
- CHAIRMAN HENDR:t:'E:
I have no obje'ction to tl:J,at~
If Peter has no bbj.ection, here Is,to "a certain extent.*'.'"
language, top page *7 which should be faster, Reamer, as*
the keeper of the manuscript.
~ow, with regard to intervention.*
(Cha1rman reading document.)
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are we dqing intervention?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRADFO~D:
Where r had come to just before we left,was that if we took the sentence -- th~t sentence had come* all the way down.to* :,.::.. our* staff ca.nnot be expected to fully_present contr~sting views in all of our* cases. "
"Contrasting views," doesn't quite capture what I was after, in any case, but what. I was prepared to do was just to drop that sentence if it was still causing trouble
.and instead, pick, up the paragraph I just circulated to you and put it in the actual discussion of.intervenor funding, whatever it is, page lB.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Sorry, Peter, I was making vigorous corrections here.
You were saying-~ I think this ought to go back in whatever we do of an extended nature, it
2 3
4 5
- 6.
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
, 78 ought to go in the section back on page -- well;it probably.
goes ;.ight in the bottom of 18 after that lead-in sentence..
COMMISSIO1'iER BRADFORD:
What I would suggest that you do is that. we drop the sentence that is troubling J*be
- beginning "Our* staff...
II CHAIRMAN. HENDRIE: Yes, if we go in with'this sort of material back on 18, can.we limit:the page 9-10 sections. really Well, Irhad come down to* it as an idea worth trying, but ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: An idea whose time is time.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I wish I had thought of that.
.COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Gould we say something a little more cheerful?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right.
Let me try a propof:!ition on you in_ the interest_,of reducing the page 9-10 section to a very brief language, and that is to insert the.Appeals Board endorsement into that proceedings sentenc~.
"This is a complex and controversial idea... "
and I don't know whether I want "but" or not, "... >but our Appeals Board is frequently attested to the value of intervenor~. "
- I would say".. contributions +/-ri the licensing process and we have come to the conclusion that iii is an idea worth trying."
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would prefer we say we feel~under the circumstances the funding of capable intervenors could make a useful contribution to the licensing
1 2
3 4
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24_
25 79 process.
CHAIRMAN HENDRI;E: **All right, where would you ~-
how would you pick -+/-:t up from back here, would°YOU use this?
- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, you might.just 1f you are* going* *to 'have the details here, I thin~ you might put the licensing Appeals Board here.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Can you read me the sentence now?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This is assuming you are going to have some.more extended discussion here, but that it is a complex and controversial idea and we have come to the conclusion thijt the funding of capable intervenors would make a useful contribution to the licensing process.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'll buy it.. It has the splendid
".. but we have come to the conclusion that~.. "
)
COMM~SSIONER GILINSKY: But then we would*pick up the Appeals Board and put it in in a longer discussion.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
I propose we do -that.
Shall I read it from the beginning of the sentence for Reamer '.s beriefi t and see if we agree on how it comes out?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, the first sentence is unchanged, bottom page 9:
"The relatve,}y new idea II and the next sentence goes unchanged to almost the end of that
1 4
5 6*
7 8
11 12 13 14
,15 16
. 17 18 19
- 20.
21 22 23 24 25
\\
page.
"This is* a complex: and controversial idea, but we have come to the.co;nclusion that.' ** ". strike the * " it" and.
lead.::to the. 5th lin:e of the next page
".. :. the funding of intervenors would be. a useful contripution to the lice*~si~~
process."
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are you going to put in-:the word capable* o~ not?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD.:
I would.like to get*rid of the.word llcomplex".
That is probably the simplest idea in the 'bill, all thing13 consiaered.
I don't mind "controversial" I can live wtth that.
CHAIRMAN. HENDRIE:
Oka.y, delete, "complex and".
II this is a*controversia-;I. idea, but we have come to the conclusion *that the funding: :of* intervenors would be a us'eful contribution to the licensing process."
I don't*know wha:t
~capable ".:~does for one there.. There is an implication _;, __
MS. ARON:
Can't you~just say, "which will enable needy groups to partitipate more fully in our proceedings or more effectively in our proceedings.?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think you want to get that thought in.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, yes and no.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That-' s not quite the idea.
The administrative procedures of the Commission are riot some sort of playground at which the citizenry in general is invited
1 2
3 4*
5
,6 7
8, 9
10 11 12
- 13.
14 15 16 17 18 19
- 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 to come and.amuse itself, okay.
The participation of these neec:ly.**goups needs to have a rationale c.onnected with the licensi'ng.~rocedure., just to say to al*low needy groups to participate mope completely, you know,, 1:otally mis.ses the thr:ust.
It leaves you vulnerable to every cri tici~m...:-::Ehat: is made of this kind of funding.,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But I think the.notion of needy is essential*.
.CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, the funding of* nee,dy intervenors?
There has to be an interest shown by the part
- and a contribution to be:~made to the proceeding before there is rationale for the.expenditure of* funds and so forth.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think it ought to be provision for funding,,..beca.use:.,it*:~isn' t across-the-board funding of.**
intervenors.
We are maki,ng provision for* funding under the circumstances.
MR. STOIBER:
The funding of those intervenors which would make a useful contribution to the licensing process and then require resources to do so.
MR. KELLEY:
Well, in trying to keep it short, why not just strike capable.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Everybody knows what the funding of intervernors is.
It ii just like nuclear.
MR. CASE:
Or standardization.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or standardization.
1 2
'3 4
5
.6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, while *we have got the language hot in hand, why don't we go back and see if we can fix the intervenor section rather.than postpone it until we get through another 10 pages and we will have forgotten it.
Go to the foot of 18, Funding'.of Intervenors.
I think that first sentence is a. fair enough st~rt~
I would then suggest that the s.econd sentence, starting at the top of page 19 also stand as it is.
. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You have the word "timeliness" in it and I guess I have no objection to it except my own reluctance to really promise that this measure is a timesaver.
In some cases I would hope that it would be.
The intervenors themselves have an argument that goes something to the effect if we don't have to do *it 'all through cross examinat~on we would be better off.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, that was the source of the comment that I put in that this pitch has been made and I have heard it from a number of people.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm not sure I really believe that it will work that way.
Maybe yes, m~ybe no.
CHAIRMAN HENP.RIE: Well, I have the same concern over quality.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, strike them both if you don't believe them.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, good, cross timeliness.
1 2
- ,;:3.
- 4.
5, 6
- , 7 8
9 10*
11 12
- 13.
'14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 I would suggest that* the "in theory? sentence stand and then we go on and say; something. like *".. also.. *."
COMMISSIONER* BRADFORD:
.I woHldn' t mind* saying*
- . "perhaps* the timeliness".
CHAIRMAN>"HENRIE:
It is not worth discu_ssingidb..:at :=,:
- this point.
Let's see, now I begin to pick up your paragraph going in here: * "Also, our proceedings often involve issues... "
and then I woµld say,. " *. **. that can be approached from
.,*'sub~tantially differe~t view points. II COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay,.that's all right so far.
Now what are you, go.ing. to do to me?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Then I would suggest:
"We,helieve that it is in the public interest for these view points to.
be fully explot'ed in our.proceedings.~
know COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Fine.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Then I would duck and not -- you then I would go to the:
"... we believe*we should fund intervenors. _,.,__;!'. and. not try to work out why the* staff and our attorneys can '*t do: all these things.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Leaving out.the last sentence which has. -few too,:many:iwords:'.iniit ---
- .at. least leaving out the:"'f:i:rst three words in it.
I still think there is some value to this business about the difficulty in pursuing inconsistent positions through the same sets:*.6f*:*witnesses and
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 attorneys.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, I was up getting down what I had said before.
84
, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We have got:ten the conflict between the staff and the applicant.
- , CHAIIµ-1.AN. HENDRIE: Yes.
COMMISS~ONER BRADFORD:
We still need to put the Appeals Board somewhere~-
MR. KEL~EY:
That could come after the theory:*
sentence.
II CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or it could come after.saying, we believe it is in the public interest for these vi~w points, i.e, the different view points to be explored in our proceedings."
It would fit there:
"Our Appeals Board has frequently attested to the value of intervenor contributions in the licens'ing process. '
11 Then I would still prefer to go ahead and say, ".. under these circumstances the Commission... "
and I would try to shorten the sentence down a little.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You can always get rid of the "under these circumstances."
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
How would you feel about the Appeals Board testimonial in there after proceedings.
It says:
"The public inter~st for these view points to be explored in our prodeedings... "
and then the Appeals Board testimonial.
1
'2 3
4*
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 85 Th~rt. do we or *don't we need that sentence?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The "however" sentence?
I like it.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: *
- I think somewhere in there, the staff is a party t6 the proce~~ings and are expected to represent ~11 points'of view.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, that approach to it, I think, has less difficulties that I worried about in this sentence, either in the morning v~rsion or the present version~.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If it said, "equal justice to all points of vie~".
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We would say:something, like "however" or "the Commission notes" I don't know.
Our staff --
I don't _know whether we need to say technal staff and attorneys or,:..ju:St.our staff is a sufficient. §har*as::terization, "Our staff is itself a party in our proceeding," and either "cannot always be expected" or ju~t "cannot be expected" ---
I would say, "represent fu-lly the several points of _view,"
or something like that.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Fine.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How *does that strike you?
Okay, now we need to get some drafting started.
Would you go with the Appeals Board in just before this sentence or some place else?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, as long as Bill is given
1 2
3 4
- 5.
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 the license to sort of juggle conjunctions to make sure the sentence is well constructed.
thought there.
I don't mind having that It might come actually better ju:=3tbefore that paragraph or just after it, but I r~ally don't care strongly about the placement of *it as long as it is in there some where.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay_.
On balance I think you are right.
I think at the beginning.of the paragraph works better.
So we would have the *~in theory" sentence on page 19, the "Appeals Board" sentence.
Can you identify that one, Bill?
You are beginning to look confused.
MR. REAMER:
No, I'm followin~ you perfectly.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And in that sentence make it "attested to the value 0of intervenor contributions," rather than "the value of intervenors.. in the licensing process."
Then we would go on:
"Our prqceedings often involv~
issues that can be approached from substantially different view points.
W~ believe it is in the public interest for these view points to be explored,"
I don't know whether you want t~ say, "in our proceedings again" or not.
".. to be explored... "
period, I think would be good.
MR. KELLEY:
Fully explored?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I think fully explored is better.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 87 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
How about just "exploring these view points.,.
11 at the moment.
Now, F. haven't
- got Vic' s language ready.
We could e*ither start "however" or we could start out "The Commission notes... ".
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
"The Commission note.s". sounds
- kind of like we are handling an-appeals ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
"However, our staff\\' is its elf a party in these proceedings... "
COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY:. "with a point :of view. II MR. CASE:
Well, I can take care of that, put an opposing in there.
I.think that will give that same thought.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You los.t. me.. What I've got at this mocient is:
"However, our staff is itself a party in these proceedings and cannot reasonably be expected fully to represent opposing points of view."
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Then in the next sentence you just get rid of "under these circumstances."
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
II can in some circumstances expect to get a more thorough airing of the issues.. " --
60 we need to pursue them:'independently?*
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Can'*t. you just period after that?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
II to f~nd qualified intervenors."
- 1.
4 5
6
.7 8
9 10 11 i2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
.20 21 22 23 24 25 88 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I*guess I like the independence thought, th,at,. ts, you might get a little Moynihan argument*_:
that, well, he doesn't mind having intervenors able to pursue issues, but he sure would hate to pay them because.then they
.w6tt 1i be independent.
staff; *r,*:atf \\the ie~d.
t-, ~)
./
1/
I don't mind knocking of_f "of the NRC COMMISSIONER G~LINSKY:
What's the problem?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There is. something about the end of that sentence that hangs for me.
COMMISSIONER GIL INS KY:
- c_buldn' t* we say, "fully repr~sent opposing points of view."
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
We are in the next sentence.
Joe was, talking. about* lopping it* off *after * ",intervenors II O
and I was ~alking about lopping it off after,-"T!i?:ep~nd~nf'._n~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do we need this s~ntenc.e
- at all?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You probably don't, except that it supposedly is* recapturing the thought that we booted out of a paragraph back on page 10 or 11 where we w~re talking about quality and a m~reth,9rougfrand more**fair licensing process.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know, maybe it is all right.
How does it strike the drafters over there?
MR. REAMER:
Does this last sentence say something different than the "in theory" sentence?
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 89 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Than the which?
MR. 'REAMER:
The "in theory". sentence at the top of:
page'l9, about the participants are better prepared?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, it does. It says you will get different points of view.
The bette~ prepared sentenc~ '
says what they wil*l do they will do better anq maybe faster and MR. REAMER:*
Okay, then the sentence oug':qt to stay in.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It really*says there are,
things you wouldn't get, maybe if you don't fund.them.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know, does it bother anybody else, the end of that thing?
Not enought to complain.
Can we start that sentence out --
I seem to need some transition from the previous discussion.
Could we,start it then: "In some'.cases then the Commission can expect to get a more thorough... "
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That's not bad. You are a realy stylist.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, if you are unprepared to deal with the substance, why there is little other place to make a contribution.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Can I make a suggestion based on the fact that I am likely to depart before we get through this page-by-page.
And that is if we close with the rest of page 19, if we can come to grips with that with the question raised about whether or not the Commission in fact
1 2
. 3 4
5 6'
8 9
10 11 12*
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
- . 21 22 23 24 25 90 feels that the bill should be enacted, that I can leave po
,fa+/-r,.~:*amount of the editing with Victor...
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
COMMISS.IONER GILINSKY:
- on the bill one way or*the*other.
- why.do we need to* comment.
- I thought that part of r:
the argument for us not submitting the.bill was p~~ci~ely so that we could sit down and look at the various.sections of it without any private authorship, you might say, without any specific commitment to the bill,as a.whole and it is
.not as if* the vote is next week"or a sort of do or die.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, let** s see.
That last phrase is a problem for you, is it Peter?
.COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well~ it is for me pecause if the bill were really to contain the hearings*provisions as they are then I don't. feel that it should be enacted.
So the last 8 or 9 words there are just not, at the moment, a perspective that I prescribe to.
COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY: I don't kno.w tli.a.t anybody is going to ask us to say right now should ~he bill go in its totality:}c *.I think they really want our views, on the various parts of it..
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But if we were asked,*we would probably give different answers in any case.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, why don't we put a period
1 2
3 4
- 91.
at "on thep6ints it does address-"
period.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:.Well, even.there, one of the points it does ~ddress for hearirigs ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, we sa,y right off the 5
- *bat here: "The Commission supports HR Il 7_04."
I mean,: 'do 6
we really have to say that?
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I shouldn't have started at the end of that paragraph.
My real point originally was the whole paragraph was involved.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There is that paragraph, there is the one. on the first page wer:e there is difficulty,:, and there is.one in the middle some place.
I would_agree on page 3 which we agreed to take out,. but there is this front end and back end.
Okay?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I' would propose that we drop 3 on the end and modify the one on page.1; just say that we support the notions which are addressed in this bill, without committing ourselves to precise language.
In other words, early siting, standardization, even the notibn of having~the states do as much as they can reasonably do without, you know, getting in-l:to the**:.precise way the bill w~s written or the associated. details -of the hearings or other matters are just the way we would like them.
MR. KELLEY:
There is an alternative for the Committee, whereby it is my understanding Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Kennedy
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 supports. the bill and thinks it ought to be enacted, just say the features of it are good but the hearing thing
- is bad and bn.t:he grounds that it shouldn't be enacted.
Because I think the very first question they are going to ask if you don't say it is, well, should we enact this bill or not:
COMMISSIONER GILINSK::Y: I don't.. think it is.
MR. KELLEY:
Well, when witnesses go up on the Hill they are either for bills or they are against them.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, this is pretty early in the process.
There are going to be a lot of hearings and a lot of things are going to' happen before this bill is enacted.
There will probably be changes of one sort or another arid I think that since it deals with us, obviou~ly*
people want to know what we *think.
Are ou:r provisions workable, are they not workable.
I think they will want to know what we think of various parts of it, but, you know, do you have to go with this bill as,it is written right now, r* don't know that anybody is going to ask us that.
Becaus~
that's not the decision before them.
They are not at that point.
MR. KELLEY:
Well, just :in ~my.poirit.*.as. ii::'ef lee:::ted in hearings, you. ;go up there and the first paragraph says this is a good bill, you should enact or it is a bad bill and you shouldn't act.
1 2
3 4
'5 6
7,'
8
,9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 93 I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The oft-given reason for why *the bill didn't come through this Commission was precisely the same, you know, dispationately addressed the various points and it was our feeling that we were committed to ail of it.
If one has res~rvations about one piece or another of it,* I don'*t see why you have to s_ay right now; you know, given the reasons *of my reservations, I would say do" it'* **
right now they are. not about to v9te on.'.it now.
They want to know whether parts are :sound and should they tinker with it.
How is it going to affecit your process and so on.
That seems to me these_ are the questions we are going to be faced with.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Why don't w.e go back to page 1 and take a look at the things we skipped*over:'in the beginning.
I really think the Commission needs to make as much of a statement as it reasonably can on a majority basis.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why don't we take out the word "exception" and then have the statement read that we support the basic notions which are addressed in this bill.
You know, we think they ought to proceed in those directions.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We do a whale of a lot more than that, though.
If the Congress said, good, go home and come back next week with the way you think the early site re~iew, standardization, et cetera, paragraphs ought to be written, we would come back with things that are very close, not identica,
1 3
4 5
6 7
8 94 some omissions and so on to what's th,ere., because indeed*what's there is there because 1 t flowed p:r;-etty much from our words,.
So I.think --*a:n.d* I think the exceptibn~- language is important in order to allow Peter to get ab9ard.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, :I; tell you, I qualified in m:y support *of the idea.of_farmirtg out NEPA to the states.
' I ',m not convinced that 'tha t I s a good idea.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, but you need' it too.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, but I think what he 10 said with exceptions,. I think that really means to a listener 11 wi.t.h pretty minor exceptions and that;doesn't include an arm 12
- and a leg, because otherwise the statement is meaningless*,
I 13 _. unless you w~rit to separate out t~~ st~ndardi~~tion ---
14 15 16
- 17.
18 19
_20 21 22 23 24
- 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's the other choice is
~o embrace the areas in which there is that consensus which is early siting, standardization.
I don't know about i~tervenor funding, and CP-OL, authorization. :You just have to enumerate those as to some of* the other. issues there.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Except, you know, you have got a whole chunk of testimony in the middle here which -deals with individual pieces.
What you are looking for h~re.is a summary statement which starts out in the beginning and says, you know, is our thrust*net positive or net negative on this hill. And in spite of the reservations that*individuals have about particul r I.
pieces of it, I~continu~ to perceive that our riet thrust is I
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 positive~
COMM,ISSION;E:R BRADFORD: For the Co:mmis:sion as* a.whole, I s~~pose that's right.* My point is that,if I were asked the question that Vic doesn't think it.will be, tpat is i
as the bi.11 is in its :present form, I would s~y,no.
That's why,I have difficulty with it..
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I doubt that anybody is going to want to be tied down that far.
After* all, 'yv,e have got some*
pages pf technical and clarifying suggestions ~hich even the most rabid enthusiast:.:will say, y'es, let Is by aii 'means'
.consider.those to help the language be clear and.not have it be full of little rip~ and.snags.that will be~ pfciblem on down the line.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
- Bu_t they aren't just t.echnicc1.,l, either.
I gather that as to the hybrid NEPA h~aring th~
recomillendation there.is that we close the door'that DOE thinks is open"in *terms of Wh§.:t;*~:* that s.ecti,on means.
So that it is not just a matter of saying, by the way, we have your changes and se~tions,numbers and punctuation.
CHAIR.Ml:\\N HENDRIE: Well, I want to look at those things, because I have got thre_e paperclips in* them and one has got mecconfused and other$, I think, are substantive.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What. do we plan*::.to do with those-incidenta.J.y.
Just indicate that we will:be submitting them shortly or do you actually plan to turn them in on Monday?
1 '
3 4
5
. 96 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Plan to turn them:'.. *.in.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But. they aren,* t actual
.draft*amendments yet. *They are just indications of where amendments cou*ld be written.
These things aren't in the
- present*form th~t one wants to be written in the law. verbatim.
- . MR. MALSCH:
- The problem* is* in some cases t wasn't 7
sure' in which. direction. the Commission wanted 'to clarify 8
- ihem.
So I e~sentially raised a series df questicins and I
9
. pro:Qlems.
It would not be very difficult' to come up with 10 draft language~ assuming 'you knew which way the language was 11*
going.,
12, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
,Do you think turning NEPA 13 over:*:to<.:the states is a reasonable and workable approach in 14 improvi'ng that aspect or not?
15
- 16.
17 18 19
- . 20 21 22 23 24 2,5 CHAIRMAN. HENDRIE:
I think it has got,its*J?irffs *_
but if,:I am willing to go along with intervenor funding; I think I'm damn sure to go along with turning NEPA reviews over to states where we are going to grill the*: whap o.ut of
- them with regard to the programs at.hey are going to have and the criteria they are going to use*and the procedures they are going to use.
By the time we get them fully *, -ril.pg out that, why we will be down to one or two states or three.
I think -- and with regards to those 0 states~ if we don't turn it over to them, why that isn't going to speed the licensing process because they are going to do their own thing any way.
And it takes*:;16hger than ours and it doesn't
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 matter what we do, really.
The pacing item is going to be
- theif 'review, so I have lots less concern than you do over this turn over to the.state.
COMMISS.IONER GILINSKY:
You are saying it basically won':t, go any further than it goes now.
CHAIRMAN,HENDRIE:* Not in the near term, not by the time we get done working with CEQ on *the procedures the*state is going to have to use, all the things they are going to have to look at and the standards and hearing procedures and everything else.
I. just don't think there are going to be very many states that are going to be in a position to move forward and take over that responsibility..
The ones that are are the ones that are doing these two,to infinity year environmental reviews, California, New York, I think Maryland is the one place where you might get a state that wouJd'vote to conform arid move.
On the case of those states, why yes.
We turn it over to them you say, you slow it down.
Well, maybe so, maybe no.
The plant can't go until they do t_hose things any way.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But the bill really encourages other states to get into this same posi_tion.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, to the extend that a state that isn't in the business decided it would like to go into the business it will come in configuring itself to an NRC-type environmental assessment process using national laboratory,
1 2
3 4
- 5
- 6.
7 8
9 10 11 i2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 98 technical support and so on, because it will be offered.
An.d it is much more likely th.an to be a state
- environmental review system and*process, which is similar to ours and. will work in a manner ~imilar to ours and on a time scale similar to ours.
- So I think :_there is, to an extent,*. sort of a compen-sating mechanism built in.
I think the states we are turning
'it over to, where you would be al*lowed to turn it over,* indeed it won't speed the process.
It wdn't hold it up b~cau~e it is going to be their process arid that ~lready takes very much longei than ours.
Other states, I think, coming later and sort of implementing to' fit this, I think are more likely to get reasonable sorts* of -- you know, they just bui_ld their staffs to fit the needs of the way we do it are likely to come out much closer.
It is still, bi the time.you get through in 10-15 years, you may be able to add up the site indeed, that the right staff, which is.now churning the environmental review
. in about a year will be a more efficient processer of that information than the average state proceeding now.
I find it hard to argue that that would not be the case, but L>have some prospect for thinking that it wouldn't be a serious problem now, against those costs.
You have to balance the fact that the state groups, the governors have said very strongly that they want that kind of responsibility,
1 2
3, 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 99 and if they don't get it from the Feds, the implication is that they will go ahead and implement state laws which in effect duplic.ate and provide them the controls.they want of this authority, sort of in parallel*,
So it is a very mixed proposition and I'm willing to.
give the biil a try and say, yes* I will support that.
I want*
to recognize that you are trying to me~t several objectives*
here and that the end result ~ay not be a. speedinq up of those and.that is. one of your objectives.
Well, how badly off is that paragraph in the front end, Peter?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well,'it doesn't describe my poiition at the moment.and I guess it was trying t6 do sort of a min:i.mum cure on it and I figured the exception to be read either to tnean_:as,the.summation of the Commission.
But if it was read as the Commissioners, then it didn't matter.
Maybe the best approach to it is to be a little more expansive and to say that the Commission supports many of the basic features of this bill, but that individual Commissioners do have separate views that>.they will be presenting.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, we get to that point immediatel there at the bottom of the page.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That's right. If you can swallow "many of" before the basic features ---
\\
\\
\\
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 100 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Does that re'iieve the need for an e~ception?
COMMISSIOijER BRADFORD:
Then you leave*the "need for an exception" th~re.
But that thought, then, has to carry through the other statements that now come 'out as sort of net ~ndorsements.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why don't we drop the other statement.
CHATRMAN HENDRIE:
- Wel 1, we agreed. to drop o,ne on page 3, you know, and I want to argue with you about a closing statement, because I think we need one.
- But I thought COMMISSIONER.BRADFORD: Well, I don't mind a closing statement that reiterates many-_df the:fea:tures.
The.0n1y*
problem T have-with the closing statement is it says -- it simply says that the Commission thinks the bill should be enacted, is that that says rather more than I would say.
In fact, it says. something different from that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't have a problem coming back at the end and sort of reiterating the thrust of that page 1 paragraph, that it be better---
It is a long statement and when we get to the back nobody will remember what we said in front.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think when you say many of the basic features then it does raise the question of what do you support and what don't you support and so on.
I frankly
1 2
3
. 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
- 18.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 101.
wofild~leave it but.* If you want to have
~ statement that says many of the b~si~.~~atures, that's fine I will go al?ng with* that, but I think that it is a b*ett~r id~a riot toLhave.
it :there at all.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:' If I can't coax,a J?Osi.tive statement out* 9f.. the Coinmission, why I can't coax a.positive statement o_ut:: of the Commission.
But I wou:ld~*.. like to be able to make that sort of a.statement if I have to 1.~vei *"many of" in there, why th.at' s the price of admission.
I would rather hf1.Ve it with than without.
By th~ way,.do you still have "with exceptionff" at the* front end?
COMMISSIONER BRADFO.RD: No, w~ have. the "many of".
I think if _you*have the "many of" you don't need*
the "exception."
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Many of, okay.
And I think that's r.tght. I think we divide on o*thers, although I think the vote gets to be 3-1 on some so.the Commission would still support, although it does divide, but on many of the basic features, I think,we are in essential agreement and. that they are in fact, the kind of thin93that the Commission has proposed, that we would be proposing this year or next if we didn't have this bill to work on.
I would suggest deleting the word in the middle of that thing, Peter, the "in addition.".
1 2
3 4
5
.6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Where is that?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
On page ---
102 MR. REAMER: It is the last sentence of that paragraph.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would delete that one, because som,e of these basic features that we think.are okay, are in fact the ones in which explicit -- with the ",in addi ti9n II** it sounds as though there are two classes and.in fact there is to a large extent the same class.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Good, I approve it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
I thought it was great when I'first read it, but --
Now, I J?ropose to you then, on page 1: "The Commission supports many of the basic features of this bill... " et cetera; delete "in addition" and would then propose to largely ---
- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, you might save parts of the rest of it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
This bill has many sections raising from lousy to excellent or excellent to lousy as you may prefer.
MR. REAMER: The* sentence on page 3 would be deleted?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, we agreed to that.
And on the end instead of --
I would "Mr. Chairman, inr:closing I would... " what do I say, "reemphasize" is that the right word?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, no.
You really are at that point asking for a nose count vote from the various
1 2
3 4
5 6
7, 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 103.
committees.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, _I presume at that_ point we are. going t6 plunge ahead and people who _have i.ndiv'idual views -- I:know Peter will want to make his and I don't know what I really want.to.say, and Dick won 1 tibe* there, but
' I
- I think we are going to promptly_ *get* into I those views.
I I think it will probably end up being comrnissioner-by;...commission r i
and section-by-section.
Would it be "reemphasized or just say "I would restate that the Commission supports many 1of the basic I
featu~es of this bitl."
Not the identic~l words, but very close.
Would that take you off the hook, 1 then Peter?
i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, lei me n6t deal further I
I with that since any changes from the page 11 wording will.be I
primarily to condense a little bit and to 1move those thoughts I
into a single sentence rather than* making ;two* sentence's of I
them so it won't be an identical restatem7nt, but t~e thoughts
- will carry in summary form.
And that.w~ll serve --*that will go in there at the end, "Mr. Chairman,* in' 1closing I would like I
to restate that... " and then here comes th'is summary sentence.
I Would you like to have anything e 1lse in that page 19 paragraph left in there?
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't m:ind if you want to I
say it, that thought about the difference between whether the
i 2
3 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 i2 13
. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104 bill should addr~ss 6ther questions.
but I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes~.
I I I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don.' t happen to have it, I
I i
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:* Well, in the interest.,o~ simplicity,
- maybe why don't*-- I will put together wilh OGC.this summary I
of the two: sentences. from**'page 1 and just I let it stand. as i I that, okay?
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
I I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, riow that gets us the front.
I end and the back end.
I I
I
- . Let us. turn swiftly to page 11.
IBY that time you
. had run,.:;out of making comments, but let's.: see, page 11, neither you nor r.had anything further,,, PJter.
Page* 12, I I
I
- expanded the coal from "coal to other typTs of energy I.
facilities," arid then we get into the difference in attack on I
I standardized designs, which I think we ought to talk about I
I for a minute or two before you have to gq away.
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What would you say if someone I
I asked you what ~re*standardized designs?
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In this context it is*a design I
- which is rece.+/-v.ea.: -- it is an explici t1y-j.enumerated design I
by somebody which has~rec~+/-v~d ~taff reco~riition either resulting in a preliminary design appfov~iI __ t'or ano:,FDA~iL.,or a Commission rule or a manufacturing licerise.
I
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 105 I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
custom design plants.
How doe~ that differ from I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The designs which appear in custom plants*are presented on behalf of ~he utility applicant I
who is going to be the owner and Qperator! of that specific unit on the specified si~~-
I Standardized1 designs are presented on behalf of a manufacturer who: doesn't have specific plants arid~sits*in-mind and hope~ to peddle the de.sign to.people who will be operators.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But you; can replicate I
these. designs from* a-:: CU!:ftpm~r view?
.: I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There is~ va~iation of the standardization policy that allows you replicating, howevei, you go through a tolrepli~ate.
In the I
st~p which is akin I
to the one of explicitly enumerating. a design and having it I
recognized with the staff, that is, when you step forward and say to utility A, I want to replicate his iplant No.. 7 arid the I
staff says, and what is that and you in effect put on the I
I table the design of his plant number 7 fo:r:: consideration by
- I I
the staff, and the staff then says, aha, we'll take that for
+eplication provided you fix the following 143 things. *And once they have,,said that, plant 7, plus th 1e 143 things to be fixed becomes a standardized design for purposes of the policy itself.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, why don't we say that
l 4
5 8*
9 11
- 12 13_
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
. 24 25 106.
foi.standardized designs.
i I*
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, we cou~d,*but ---
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Nobody fhere.will know.
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Everybody manages to have his I
own concept o.f what it means, a,nd it alsol has perhaps a"Jsimilar I
but somewhat *bro'ader meaning outside the t:ontext of the bill I
I and the staff standardization* policy. _:.
' I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it would be useful I
I to explain wha_t it is you are talking about in that one I
- I
- sentence.
I.
, I I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We.could. i A*ybody here think I
he.could write!.it out?
i I
I i
We could in~lude,.if you likJ, Jrhat would amount I.
i to sort of parenthetical remark once wJ*gJt to talking about I
I I
standards -- in the specific feature where we are talking,
I I
about standaidized designs, say, this i
I lfe~ture of the bill I
I also reflects current NRC administrati-tre ~ractice, but it is I
1*
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I wo~ld imake.i,t the coll}bined I
I CP-OL with some. other matters and that lis isomething you don't *
- I.
. i I
I I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, the irealson, I think, that I
I.
the Atomic Energy Act in 'laying out CP~II ari!d OLs and the I
I information you supply at a CP stage an~ sb 6n speaks in terms which, well not in using the explicit w6rdb, has very strongly 1
I I
I important:for recognition have: :.there.
I I
I I
I
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10*
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I
I 'i 107 in it the sense of sort of blassical cust6m design preparation sufficient to the staff.~ custom review, b-b.ild the* particular I
plant',. do the OL review on it and so on, and here comes another I
guy with another design.
The usefulness of statutory ~ecbgnitio~ is that in I
use of.these designs and the way we propoii;e to use them is I
a sign1ficant element, we hope, in the future.
I think it I
wofild be very useful for the Congress to ~how that _it recognizes I
indeed th~t th.is is the way we are moving i toward* doing business I
and, good, I think that's a useful concept.
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I think it would be I
useful to have a statement here arid just ~iplain that we are I
I talking about approval of design and part~ from siting one particular*~l~n~t I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, precisel1/4.
And you:would like.to try, why ~e could include a I
- remark saying, "I should note that in talking about standard i
designs the Commission generally means designs that are I
explicitly enumerated,11 and whatever it w~s that.I said.
I I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, tha,t is the concept I
that you think is the statutory recogni_tiqn?
The approval I.
of designs apart from particular applicatipn for a particular plant in your sitings.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have tp take off.
I
1 2
3 4
5 '*
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108
- i I
I I
I '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me asJF y0u before you go.*
I I
how.* strongly *you feel_ about th_e. p*ag*e lT., t3, 14_.. Y*ou adopted I.
OPE' s.standardization discussion.
In ~o~e-ways I' liRe*:--1 it I
I better than my** rewrite and other ways I dcim' t.
Because thei:rs I
I I
- I has _the feature that it starts out and 1 1t1say, Point 1, *some I'
I I' ' I would argue that this is a good idea, however,.others would 1*
I.
have different* views~-
- Two,
-- well y0u know.
The _point I
I I
is made by a few.t_hat it will help safJty*i On the.other 'hand I
- I
. though 1 t
- has ar.i. -extraordinarily sense j to *Ii t ---*
I I
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Excerit for point*4.
-1
. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Does thisipo~nt 4 come in four square J
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:.
There would be something I
I to be said for making point 4, point 1 Jin that.
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: So I wanted to whack up there I
and be. a little more positive.
Or a~ternately how Badly did you feel about my draft?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I can live with most any I
I for~ulation in theie, I think.
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I I
th 1ink some of the things I said probably could be thrown qut, I
fdr *instance like that I
point. 4 from the OPE draft and other pi:eces of it to.
I I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why dpn't we leave it this j.
way, Joe, when ~o you plan to-put this~- I'll just plan to i
call in first thing in the morning and see what you and Victor I
I I
I
1 2
3 4
5
- 6.
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 109 have done.
CHAIRMAN HENpRIE: How late can you stayr Vic?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Until 5:00.
CHAIRMAN. HENDRIE:.
I think' it will take us until.
5:00 to* thrush on through~
.* COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
What I was going to say is I'll -ch~ck back in the morning and if I have any strong objections to what you come up with I can register them at that ~oint~
I*guess you will.want to. ~ut this to bed* around noon.
Let's leave it on that basis.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-Maybe you,had better as close to noon as you can.
- COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The only other g11estion I had, whether you intend to make any reference to the fact that the Commission did at one time have a form 'of the NEPA delegation which you considered preferable than the one in this legislation.
That is, without_saying that you oppose this one you could say you feel it could be done better.
MR. MALSCH:
There is a feature in the bill now that comes fairly clo'se to what the Commission really had in mind and that is in 195(i) which authorizes ihe states ---
CHAIRMAN, HENDRIE:. Yes, except that when we did the alternate to our draft bill and finally decided to balance because it seemed easy : to* _:i,inpJ.eIUent _
- because we liked it better, why it said we will use state work products, they can
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8*
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 110 just come in and joi~ us in our hearing, so on.
That didn't propose to tran~fer NEPA auth9riiy to the* states.
It didn't offer the.option.
MR. MALSCH:
Right.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think that' s* the thin'g th,a t Peter '.s ---
I _wou,ldn' t object to it.
. COMMISSIONER BAADFORD:
To commissi'oning that.or CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes.
I wouldn't obj.ect to that.
Aside from the drafting problem as tim~ runs short, why COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it would be a good idea.
CH,A.IRMAN HENDRIE:
Indeed, if we me,ntioned it in
. this testimony,
- why it s~ves you hp.ving to crank up something in my own remarks, which would be a help.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, so you will take a check back and we probably won't do anything that would disturb you.
Where are you going to go, Maine?
Things will be so *ser~ne up there, nothing will distr~b you.
(Commissioner Bradford departed the meeting.)
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's. see, we are going to crank in some statement of what standardized designs are?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
"This feature is also reflected.... II MR. CASE:
Mr. Chairman, does the preferred version
1 2
3' 4
5 6
7 8
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111' on standardization have number,s in it, manpower numbers, because i
I'm not sure wh,ich one you are working 1 from. over there.
i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well,' I li~ft those nu~ers in. mine
- and Peter took them -- well.
Peter tobk them out of his and
. I I
I don*' t much care, about them.* one way.o;r-. the other.
I MR. CASE:
I'm.saying, if yor want to, use them, I i
would like to check them to make sure they are* right,* because I
I I don't know where they.came from, butj I assume they got them I
I from somewhere.
.. I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:-
Well, they came out of Denton's I
Report, I assume.
I, I ! '
I And those were from I
MR. CASE:
a few applications?
'CHAIRMAN°::HENDRIE: I don't know t,ha.t' they did a.
I
- great deal. As a matter of fact, that &hole paragraph on.page the first page 13 started realisticallt -- struck.realis~ically I ' i.
or is struck in'the other one and I don't have any objection I
I I to doing that also.
I I
Let's see.
Standardized Designs.
First*sentence I
okay"as struck,to some extent.
I
' i COMMI$SIONER GILINSKY:
I think it might.be useful to give it statutory recognition here. i It could prefectly I
well g6 ilong without the statutory reJognition.
Ybu have I
licenses.
Just because things are important doesn't mean I
they regard statutory recognition as t~ere are different things i
you can do, indeed to change the statute.
Is it importance, I
I I
l
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 112 beci:J,use the authOrity is in doubt?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:. No, the expl,ici t, I think is about.the ri.ght ~word.
It merits explicit recogn,ition.,
MR. KELLEY:
It is unusual fio~ *a.genci~s to go off
.and. get confirmatory authority even t~~~*gh their* lawyers I.
. *advise them that they don't have to dol that.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Supo 1se you' ju~.. t present the following statement:
"This feature of the bill is also reflected in current NRC administrati1e practice." period.~
Then say, ~I would remind you ~hat st~ndardized ~esig~ are the following.
Then say that their a~iiilability offers a I
number of pote*ntial advantages and youi believe* the concept
,~~:~~-ti~j~-~,f~eJ)'<?.!~r-~-~rt~1-2iiJ?eitq~ance -I 1*
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, leti' s see if we can. that.
I i
Do you think you ca:ii-t1;ack that Bill?
I MR. REAMER: I think I can.
i I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
A period ~fter, *"practice"*.
I Then we get an explantation.
I would pote that by standardized*
design the Co~ission means... "
then you will have.to I
track back along the transcript and se~ if you.can find those I
particuiar. w.or9-s_,:,c..It means a design th~t has been explicitly MR. REAMER:
Well, let me of~er one,suggestion.
If I.were to attempt design, I would say that it is i
a definition of a standardized i
I I
a facility.design which has achieved staff recognition and which hts been proposed and I
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
' 113 approved as a design ha~ing potential ~alue for more than one plant.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I wouldn't say it has the staff recognition.
MR. KELLEY:
It has got more than staff recognition.
CO~ISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, you have a standardized design which hai been approved and yo~ have a standardized design which hasn,tcbeen approved.
So a design is a design.
We are really talking ~bout 'design apart.from ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, we are talking about designs that have staff approval.
The provisions in this legisltation and in the standardization policy.~alk about t~e use of standardized designs.
Now, if you are going to use a standardized design, it has to be a design which has been approved by the staff.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, at that point it is
~pproved, but we are talking about reviews of standar~iied designs.
Hearing will come after staff review,.but certainly licensing of standardized designs.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But the words I used were staff recognition of a design as one intended vendor or use.
presented by a COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I mean, when somebody gets a PEA, a design is a design.
It is standardized design, but it is not an approved design, so what have we got here, staff
l 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 approval.
MR.. KELLEY:
When you go to hear it you can litigate the adequacy of that dssign,;less the standings are* that view they think they have.
.Urider this bill, that w6uld no lon~er b~ trcie.,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:. What I'm saying is. that it is no less a standardized design before the staff has approved
- it than after the staff has approved it. It is just not an approved standardized design.
You know, it is true that at some CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I was making*the definition narrower than that.
I was making the definition narrower so that when you talk about standardized design you had something that had at least staff approvals,* not necessarily a rule or Commission approval after hearings..
I don't know whether you want to limit it that way or not.
MR. KELLEY:
I would think not in talking about this bill.
A standardized design under this "bill is a design you are going to look at once and then in later applications, you can't put it ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are saying that standardized design is one that has been.looked at and approved.
But the basic point is the design apart CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Presented apart from a specific plant application and presented for the purpose of being
1 2
,3 4
5
.6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21*
22 23 24 25 115 p,re-,reyiewed MR. 'CASE:*
I think that purpose element or the*
ir'J.t~nt element often *inclines the key *element that you are getting.at.
It is* offer:ed,for;,_the purpose.' o~ being immediately',used in different situations regardless. of the site.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes, then I would say the avaflability of standardized designs offers a number of potential advantages,for -- for somet~ing -- for the use of. ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, say availability -- I'll buy that.
- ... "The availability of ?tandardized designs offers a number of potential benefits and the. concept nteri ts ar::
- explicit statutory recogni;tion."
Now, if you guys can gin up a definition --
you had better.hhelp, Ed, but don't make it too horribly complex, please.
Okay, now, from there let us see what the two sided did.
C0~U,SSIONER GILINSKY:
. Oh, these are yours and his.
Are they very different?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, let's agree to strike the realistically paragraph.
That was the one with the -- that's that one and it is alre~dy struck on that.one.
Now, we go at it sort of two*ways.
1 2
'3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13
- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
- 116, MR. REAMER:
Just to clarify, the realistically paragraph is to be struck cir the word "realistically"?
CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE:
No, the Raragraph.
I.tell you what! let's go back to Peter's page 12, 13, 14*, okay.
We are now over to the*bottom of 13 because most of 13 is crossed out, okay.
MR. CASE: The stuff in the middle of 13 still in?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
,No, the realistically MR. CASE:
Before that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You have got to flip over, there is another page 12, 13, 14 in a little bit.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It is very hard to tallow.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It goes back and forth.
Let's start on the bottom of page 13 and see if we can -- first Let's see.
We jupt got through saying*
they offer a number of potential benefits and so on.
Why don't we start out first and pick up that stability and predictability.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, is that the primary goal of standardization, that is from our point of view, but I think the major gains are in construc:::tion and that area is completely outside our purview.
It is insofar as it relates to our process.
In fact, it might be worth saying that there are many advantages to the industry to move in this direction.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 117 CHAIRMAN. HENDRIE:
You can look at mine.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's fine.
I would take
- out as b~{lding.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What we might do is make it
- one of these enumeratedc,things.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What do you mean?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
This could become -- if we wanted to. say something like, at first an goa_l of standardization is to introduce the degree ---
second, ---
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it is better to have this come first because this is more general.and then say in cbnnection with the licensing process it would have the advantage of ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think this single design gives the misleading notion that it will from. now on be one design.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Unle9 s you.had a smaller number of designs.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
How about few design~,.because it is simple.
Do we need a first, second, third configuration?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, Bill, if you will gather up -- take my page 13 that underlying ~ection.
This would
1
- 2.
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 118 start after we get through saying explicit statutory recognitidn.
I think we could plunk ~ight in part of the same paragraph, the concept encourages the concentration of technical staffs....
on a *:few.designs ---
.*, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would s.tick in here that the availability of -- maybe complete,design is too strong, but before construction, he1p improve the quality of the plant, again, the notion that having the design work done before they build the plant.
CHAIRMANHENDRIE: And you don't tl:+ink.this does it?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
".. at an earlier point in this design... "
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That should have peen in there in the beginning.
I 'don't know whether I forgot to write it in when I drafted it or it got transcr,ibed wrong.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Then. it is okay.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, read it to him.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
"Next, it encourages a more complete development of the design at an early point in the design fabrication and construction sequence."
.CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Take out "as built" and run to the end.
Then I think we would like to add, and this probably could start a new paragraph, "In connection with the licensing process... "
let's see.
Do you now go to Bradford's 14.
Down
2, 3
6, 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 _
22 23 24 25 119'. *
\\
I there on tha.t 4th goal y_ou started outl, "In connection with I
the.,licensing process',*.a goal of stan9ardization*. ~. "* and* then I
I~'.think.it runs okay t~ the end of th~t. 4th thing~.
I
. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: *Let'~..see, if you ar*e saying,
.f
"... introd~ce~ the greatest stability !and predictability.. *. '.'.,.
f
- ' do you,:Peed the II. *
- necessary to el~minate uncertainties.* II?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, you don't.
I Good, then we could.go on,* "I*. this is accomplished by',the f oreg*oing... II I
I I
o:k.,ay.
. I Now,. that wouid be the next :thing after my paragraph I.
on page 13.
Should we pick up any o:5 these other elements I
ini_here.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: When.you say, "
fo:regoing changes... "
do you mean in a specific 'design?
There is~
I step change every now and then as you !produce a new standardized design.
I I
I don't think we ought to gile the idea t_hat
'MR. KELLEY:
But it is coverled in the next I
parag+aph.
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is it? Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now,* the previous*page.
Turn back to Peter's 13 and see if you wan~ t~ pick up som~ of these other items starting at the bott~m.
- I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What a.re we going through I
all of this for.
For every plus therel is a minus.
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Do you jus~ want to go on then and
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 pick up the -- pick'up on 15?
COMMISSIONER ~!LINSKY:. Well; I wc;mld.make some of *these points, but,not
- in the back-and-forth manner as it*
is done here.
I think probably what it is saying is that there are* sti*ll site specific questio~s that havy to be reviewed, unless the early siting.provision has 'also*been utilized, but I don't know~
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Wash it.. We have already got a couple of statement on it.
Then we go ahead:
II the criticism most often heard... "
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would put that in the positive.
- I'd say, "standardization is not intended to... "
Rather than stating criticism is trying to,~7-CHAIRMAN, HENDRIE:
Okay, bottom of page.14, can we put that in the sense, "... standardization is not intended to freeze the design of nuclear plants... "
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Or t:o hobble the technology, which means you move step-wise.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You go in little hopps.
"... standardization is not intended to freeze the design of nuclear plants....
MR.. REAMER:
II ment of the*technology... "
or to restrict the possible improve-how about that thought.
MR. CASE:
It is, but it is only for a short period
2 3
4 5'
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 121' of time.*
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:. That,:.s -What. I mean.
- Tn other I
I word.s, if you.. step back.and you look tj.t 'the development *of
... I-'
technology this may well,b~ a better iay to do it.
So you can alwciys use the airplane analogy.
I ' '
i CHAIRMAN H~NDRIE:
Let's se~.
We've. got a thing i i that starts out:
".* 'in connection wjjth the licensing
. l process the goal of standardization i~ to increase the I
degree *of, stability and
- predictabili t~.
This is accompli.shed I
by both'industry and the regulator, fdregding.*. "
I would I
then suggest
".... for discrete perio~s ** ~
introduction of changes having only marg_inal public go on_,-'- then pick up over there on i
I benef.i ts ~..* I' I
II pa,ge 15, and then no standardized design would be approved witho~t the fhll array... "
and so on and so on.
Or does that leld too much?'
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: *well,l r think when people.
I I
talk about freezing the technology th~y are usually concerned I
not about safety features, but about b 1roader aspects of the I
developIUent:.:of reactors.
I I I i
- CHARI.MAN HENDRIE:
Yes, true!.
COMMISSIONER GI LINSKY:
And !it is not intended to hobble that either.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
True.
His *language sounded pretty read that again, Bill?
I I
I i
I I
I I food.
I Do you want to
1 2
3
.4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
. 122 MR. REAMER:
I had: "Standardization is not intended to free~e thi design of nuclear plants or to restrict possible
- improvement of ;the techp.ology in addition. to public heal th an_d *sa.~etr *protection."
Or it. could be "
woulcl be to prevent >the possibl~.. *. II alternatives CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We have got to get the specified
.period and st~p-:-wi°se *impro~ement.
MR. REAMER:. We are talking about big things like technology, not individual' designs.
1'
- coMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Containment designs.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
"Standarc;Hzation is not intended*
- to freeze the design or restrict improvements of the technology or additional measures for pu~iic hea~th and ~afety,---"
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why don't y~u start a new sentence with,"public health and safety."
"Nor is it intended.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No, because I want to go on *and
,say something along the* 1.j.ne, but requires that:.:these improvements in additional measures or these improvements, at any rate, be made in-step-wise fashion.
I don't know what I mean by that.
I know what I mean by that, I'm* not sure anybody else would know.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That-means you are collecting improvements and when you get enough of them -- you could say byt.the introduction of new models, rather than *by ---
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let me ask a question.
Is the II
1 2
3 4
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 J?Oint clear enough so we would do better to move on and leave to the d~afters *the cre~fion of the necessary language to carry the thought..
MR. KELLEY:
I think it is~
CHAIRMAN HEND,R.IE:
You in fact do freeze things.
MR. KELLEY:
Sure you do.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You don't let.the vendoi ~ake improvements in what he 'thinks would be commercial improvements in his design and you don't let the staff implement the latest reg guide unless you think it is a big enough deal to a backfitting opera~ion.
On the other hand, this doesn't go on indefinitely, I
it goes on for the period of the license or:permit or whatever.
Then there is a c.hance for everybody to leap in and upgrade.
Now, as I get on down that next' page, why I covered the point, see down in the middle of the page where it says, "Also under the'bill an approved design.remains good for no more than five years and both technical and safety*improvements... "
I don't mean te~hnical, I mean technological,
- .* and safety improvements can be made* *when the design is reviewed or renewal'or resubmission."
If they want to do a re&l refurbishin arid then submit it as mark 2.
So the thought does appear down the line, explicitly, and maybe you can work out some way so that that will all fall together.
If the need is clear enough and the intent is
.1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 124 clear enough maybe we can move on, what do you think?
MR. KELLEY:
. (Nods in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I see noddi~g heads with no conviction in the eyes.
MR~ REAMER:
Well,. we will find out when.it is redrafted.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Just don't call me on Saturday*
and ask ~bout testimony.
A little bit abov~ that sentence I was guoting in there, ~nd to meet a note that I found in Bill Pailer's rundown, it says:
"No standardized design for nuclear power plant will be approved by the NRC without the full array of reviews to procedural and safeguards, including notice and trial time of hearings and no power plant using a standardized design would be approved.
Please add without modification."
MR. KELLEY: That sentence ought to come after the interval thought because what comes after that is the interval concept.'.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'm beginning to get sufficiently baffled by this section.
So like the amateur ~rt ctitic, I
will know what I like when I see it, but I couldn't draw it for you.
Transfer to the States:
Aside from certain grumpy commissioners, we all think this is a good idea.
How is that a way to start that one.
(Laughter)
1 2
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 125 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Couldn't*you just stick in something to the effect that this.is unclear whether this will speed up or slow down.
My thought is initially I think it would slow things down.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
There are several things to'cork into'the transfer to the states.
One of them is we would' read, with Peter,. that we will take note of the fact that in its own drafting-the Commission drafted a NEPA transfer.to.the states section which carried many of the same thoughts that are in the present bill. That as it considered the various program qualifications and reviews of state proposals that would be
~~quired, we formed an alternate NEPA review draft which*said in essence what is said now in --.what is it, Marty, 195 MR. MALSCH:
195(i).
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
195(i).
That is that state work products would -- it really just reiterates what we believe to be our authority at the present time..
So there ought to be a paragraph noting that.
Anot~er thing I would like to note in here and would be glad to give up some of the other verbage, to keep it from getting overlong, is that the --
I think it would be fair to say that we understand that the section as drafted in the 11704 follows fairly closely the recommendations of the governors~ conference, that is, I think there ought to be
- l 3
6 7
.8 9
- 10.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
- 20.
21 22 23 24 25 126 I
recognition, perhaps without graw;rng* out all the connections that this section :is not necessarily, totally,:.ni:n.iquely a.
_federal.concept and has*the support on the federal level, because the fact th~ governors came. dowr(* s'trongly for* this authority Wq.S really a major motiva'tio.n;.. I. believe, in the way,the. s~ction 'finally came ou,t.
For ips tan'ce, in DOE ' s *
- choice' to 'go the present way- 'rat.her than to accept our alter-native, NE:PA review language, which Peter and I went over the arguments with Hanf ling and_ his crew one time~* and he pointed out, okay, he understood o~r poirit of.view but he.
felt that the judgment wc;mld probably. be that. DOE had a commi tmeht to.the governors' ::conf e~ence.
MR. REAMER:
Just to* be *clear, di,d the governors_
contemplate a deleg~tion of NEPA to the states?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Precisely, they said give it to us and you Feds get out in toto.
MR. REAMER:
- But they were aware*that it was a-
.delega,tion of NEPA and not a dele_gation of environmental review responsibility.). *::the latter being more flexible, and perhaps accommo_dating _more state programs.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What they were explicit about was, get the Fed's hands off and th~re is no way you _can do that unless.you transfer the NEPA responsibility.
Either that**
-or declare NEPA doesn't comply, which is sort of unthinkable.
MR. REAMER:
I was just clarifying what the governors
1 2
3*
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 1~
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 127.
have*agreed t9, that's all.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have got. the thing around
- some place.. You can. look at it.if you rea11yneed to.
And then crank into this sec.tion that we are not certain,,in. fact, that* tram~ier's to the states will -- we are not ce~tain but what it may *n6t lengthen the pr66ess.
I think it* is* ~ort of plus something minus nothing *... I don't think it is right on. center eitber way.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The reason. for qoing it,ts' not to speed up the* process.
.CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think that Is right.
Over there where it cranked around about the state's capabilities and we must recognize if they don't
- 1ipg_'.!'."ade' and so on, I wouldn I t say that~
We want to make it clear that the bill calls for states meeting what will inevitably be :eairly* rigorous requirements before they can assume the NEPA responsfubility, but talk about upgrading
. their competence and so on.*
You have to go, I have got one or two.. more things I want to pick ~ith them.
(Commissioner Gilinsky departed the meeting.)
Now, as soon as you can make some kind 6£ crack at these several.dr~ft,ing jo_bs, why don'*.t you see if you can get a copy to me, well, get it around to all of the offices.
MR. KELLEY: Do it by when?
1
- 2.
.3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
- 20 21 22 23
,24 25 128 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, we are do to be there by when?
Cl_ose of business tomorrow.
MR. - KELLEY:
Ear.ly tomorrow~ -
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I,'Will be* in Bethe'sda torriorrow ~
MR. REAMER:
You will be.in Bethesda.all day? -
CHAI.RMAN. HENDRIE: Uni;:il late afternoon.
I will be going ou*t there ---
MR. KELLEY:
We can send it out by messenger.
You can tolerate written words and stuff?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Oh*/ y~s, anything -that is passable.
It seems to me we have fairly well defined what we heed in the standardization section',* but it has been. a good deal fuzzier in the ~tate's section.
I worry *a little bit*
more about that.
The points that w~ would warit to get in-,:.
the fact that we are not sure but what the transfer to states may not lengthen the process and that's about the right sort of tone to have on that.
MR *. KELLEY:
You can just trade that from this lanugage here about competence.
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
ThaH: s okay.
There is another piece that --:-. the question of whether the HR 11704 scheme -- on the same page
".. will prove
.attractive to the states."
Let is strike that, to an extent that it would be covered by what I would like to see, which is. just a very summary reference to the fact that we understand
1 2,,
3 4
5 6
7 8
9
- 10.
- 11.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
- 23 24 25 129 that these p~ovisions reflect -- strongly reflect the views of the.. ~¢>vernors' conference on these matt~rs and so on.
Let* that stand.
MR. KELLEY:.. That goes in.
This has to go out~,
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
I was, a little uncertain whether I wanted to say that any way.
The *business ~bout, ".. from our perspective w~
tn.ihk:i_+/-t is reasonable, to require* that the review be the proc~dural and substantive* equivalent.of what NRC i ::is::~*requ+/-red to do,"" is an odd way to end this section.
It seems to me it needs to go back in some place where we. explain over here on page 16~ middle of the page, we say, "~. the b,ill offers the states' to do the thing if. they are up to it,.a'*state which de~ires to make ihese determinations would be required to submit a program for making the determinations.~." and so on "*'
to be approved the state program must contain... " q.nd so on.
I would incorporate the thought of the end of page 17, over at that point and then MR. KELLEY: You have already said they have got to comply with NEPA, on 16.
C.HAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
I'm not sure that that's the thought that we think they have to do at least a procedural and,. substantive equivalent of what we* are doing is the usual thought, if it is not already there.
That would mean that we would end the section on
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- 16.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 130 state.-:- *.transfer the NEP,A. !esponsibility to the states on this Qomment qbout a**li ttle unc~rtain butuwhat this may
'not lengthen licensing times.
MR. CASE:
As long as *you mean the ~resent licensin~
time~
The.other ~ide of the coin is that unless you do something.like this, the states are going to come in and
- ie~gtll.en it t~ an 'infinity by.saying you can't build this*damn plant here. unless you have my*approval.
So it is a choice of evils, sort of thing that you are facing here and this is. the lesser of the two, I believe.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But I think the statement about uncertainty tha~ it will lengthen the process ~s a correct one.
And th.en wha.t it
- does i.s to leave the. section on state transfer with that cautionary thought at' the end, and that's not bad.
On the combined CP-OL section there was a comment that I wanted to make down in the middle where the paragraph starts: ".. the combined CB-OL authority is a long term
- r~form measure.riot likely to be used in the near future."
I think in fact, that's correct.
l'1Y own view is that *J_:t,is likely to be much used.
As soon as we get some final designs in hand -- standardized final designs, I think you are not going to se~ arty.more PDA level stuff at CP time.
So I would long term, I'm not sure.
I would suggest we do a long term reform measure*and have it read:
".. the combined CP-OL
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12*
13
,14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 131 author*i ty is an important alternative avenue to an NRC license. i, Then I would go on:
II and one, we would encourage for~use~i~~th~cfature... " or e~uivalent words if I didn't quite*win out in the grammar.
The.rea~on.is, from our* standpoint getting the final designs in h~nd at the.beginning of the pr6cess.has a lot of,advantg.ge.
So rather than talk about whether we th.:j..nk they are likely to be used or not;. let us please say we would encou~age the rise of, eicept iearrange that.
MR. KELLEY: But you would.say, what, "
- wduld be an important alternative avenue... "?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:,. Yes.
From there. -- How are you 'doing, Bill?
MR. REAMER:
I think I've got it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Shall I lurch ahead or do you need to,transcribe?
MR. REAMER:
I have, "The combined CP-OL authority
'would be an *important alternative avenue through an NRC license and one which we wofild encourage."
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
Meaning if you passed the bill we would*do it.
That's right, because we said it is an avenue, why we can encourage that avenue, good,::-good.
Next page we are going to cut:
II
_and timeliness.. "
µp there and then:
"Mr. Chairman, in closing I would... "
I:.',rn
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 132 not.sure whether I would restate or reemphasize or what.
T.hen collapse ~he two sentences *at the front end* on page one into one ~entence and conclude the prepared*statement.
Oka.y ~*
There is one more thing which hangs annoyingly about*one's head here, and that is; what to do with the nut.. and bolt. stuff.
It could go up pretty much as it is.
MR. STOIBER:
Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that you are probably goin~ to be getting some questions from members of the committee asking you to address specific issues in which ¥OU would like to say you would like to come back and review what the responses are.
Maybe the better 0
idea would be to submit the detailed comments after you have had an opportunity to find out what specific things they are interested in.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, it may be necessary ---
MR. STOIBER: That would avoid hav{ng to send'. yet another piece of paper in addition to this one as well~
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'm sorry we have run down on time so, that w_e don':t have a chance to go over*:this infor-mation and decide which way to go in some places and to have some drafting -- some language drafted to recommend the cure to what we see as some of these difficulties.
I'm just wondering even at that it wouldn't be better to note in the Commission testimony that there:* are a
1 2
3 4-5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 i
I 23 24 25 133 number of places where technical clarification changes would be useful and that we, are supplying a list of these for the record, although language has not been proposed, if the committee liked we could come;_ afterward with language.
And
'that. would allow, this or the essence of this to attach as
- ~ pait of the submitted recordJ and stake.out, in effect that we have these areas where clarification is useful.
For some of these, why, you know, you sort of cry out and say, all right, what's the damn language I ought to use~and I understand why you didn't draft it.
In others, the fact that this concept which appears here and here, but not here need to be made consistent is in itself a useful thing.*
MR. CASE:
I think it ou~ht to go along,. because it reflects the kind of deli~eration you have given in this bill, otherwise if you just have Y.Our primary testimony it will look like you have spent five minutes on this.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It does.
Before we quit let me ask you a couple of questions about it, partly for clarification and partly to see if there are substantive issues hidden in here which --
On page 2, section 102, revised section 185(c) it says the meaning of: "at*the risk of the applicant," should be clarified, specifically it should be made clear whether this provision would preclude special treatment of
,sd.te* cost of NEPA reviews.
What is the Seabrook stand there of the
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 134 MR. MALSCH:
The Seabrook stand is that you can give special treatment to site costs in NEPA reviews.
And at least~arguably i~ that case t~e continuation of constrhction would in fact, have an effect on the subsequent review and it ~oftld not be, at least in the limited sense, at the risk of the applicant~
Now, * >.*'cDOE:.*.Q says in the section-by-section analysis in*effect that Seab~ook would be changed, but the bill doesn't speak to that specifically one way, or another..
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Should this item then read as it does or should it note the Commission's Seabrook -- the thrust of the Seabrook decision or what?
MR. :MALSCH:
We could if we were convinced that we did*not want to be d~nied the option of according special treatment to s1te costs.
In most cases here I simply raised issues or~ the suggested resolution.
CHAIRMAN... HENDRIE:
Yes.
MR. GIBBON:
Mr. Chairman, I know that Commissioner Bradford has some rather strong feelings one way or the other on the way these issues'should go.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I expect. most of us. do..
And the question is then -- the aim*then is to try to avoid_stating any particular issue in a way that unnecessaril prejudices our position, however we may come down eventually.
For this one it may very well be that just saying it just this
1 3
4 5
6
, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20, 21' 22 23
'24 25 135 way is about*a neutral as one could g~t at this point, clearly.before a Cornmissi6,n recommendati~:m saying, *now, here's the kind of language* you should use to. clarify wouid come* out,.
why the Commissio.n would have to meet arid,decide what i:t; wanted to* say about* this.*
Maybe.*thi's leaves it fa+/-,rly
- enough open while. still marking it out as an area where we* think* clari-fication would be very usefhl ~nd*save ilis. a lot bf ago~y down the line.
193 (d).*
The second one was page-4~ section 105, pew section, Are. you sure you have got.,t,he right section,' Marty?
- It just didn't seem to me to make,any sense.
. (Mr. Malsch* check his. documents.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
(d) saxs the site permit will be valid for.10 years, et *cetera.. The (a) it says at a cer:tain time come in for renewal and it can be renewed; and (b) the Commission shall renew unless:::i t £:inds *significant new information ---
MR. MALSCH:
I was:~looking. at paragraph 3 there~
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
"A permit issued pursuant II
~ 7 rt
"... valide_only to a thermal neutron power generation fa6ility designed to produce..* " so and so.
MR. MALSCH: I was trying to express Commissioner Bradford's problem of the fact that designs are produced II does not necessarily mean will produce.
There was some discussion about that lSast week about the possibility of how
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 136 to improve the language.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, but this is at a time when the only thing you*:have. on the table is a site permit, and the site permit says, now, this site is good for a reactor that is pain:ted,blue and.is five feet by ten feet by twelve feet, okay.. And you are talking. about renewing the site permit.
How do you know what the plant performance of a unit ev.entually built on a site is going to be?
MR.MALSCH: Well, except -- you are talking about conditions in site permits and it might be relevant at a later point in time when you are referencing a site permit in a CP application in knowing whether or not the conditions are met to know whether the conditions speak in terms of design or whether the condi tio.ns. speak in terms of expected operation.
I :.. think we had sort of decided last week that designs really meant the implicat,ion that each expected operation would fall within the designs.
So I mentioned it as an item of clar+/-fication any way.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Leave it in,but it is badly worded.
There is no way you can know what plant performance will be until you build the plant and you are talking about renewing a site permit.
It may be years or never before you have a plant in place and can tell what i ts-:performance is.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 137 MR. MALSCH:
Right, we are talking about paragraph 3 and the conditions of paragraph three are speaking to would only have meaning at a later point in time when an actual plant design is being.proposed.
And the question is does it fit within the site permit conditions.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You are not going to know at that point.
That's the construction permit stage.
I don't see any other way to do it.
Peter's problem was that when you say which is designed to produce levels et cetera, dbeS that reasonably assure that the per£ormance will be up to the design.
What we have said is that we use the language which is designed to produce, et cetera, in a sufficiently broad way so that we mean it is designed by the better to produce a certain performance, _the staff agrees it will produce the peformance, the plant is built, the performance is tested and by God, it must meet that level.
So that in effect, it covers the whole smear.
MR. MALSCH:
I '_think that's right, and I think there was a consensus.. *on that when we spoke about it.
We might just drop it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would recommend having it come out.
Page 5, section 106, new section 194.
Ed Case wants to knock down the number of renewals in this thing to one.
I don't know whether I feel up to doing that unilaterally or
1 2
3*
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 138 not~
MR. CASE: I talked to each of the assistants on the point, and I don't know whether they went in and talked to their CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, things have been pretty hassled and I don't know how much focusing on _the point has been possible.
Why don't you buck up that item, your paragraph_
- number 14, Marty, to say 194(d) (2) (a) it should -- why don't we lean it a little bit and say since there is some qu~stion as to how many renewals of a design should be permitted without review and upgrading ---
MR. MALSCH.:
Should we make the same point for both designs and~sites?
MR. CASE:
It appears in both.
the same problem..
The same language, CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, well, let's see.
In the site thing, does it go on for indefinite numbers of 10 year extensions?
MR. MALSCH:
The same problem.
It uses the word renewal for five year periods.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I see.
The same kind of thing.
Well, maybe I had better not prejudice.
There should be clarification of whether one or two or an indefinite number of renewals can be permitted without some measure of upgrading
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is the way I would put it, frankly.
Then we can later that gives the opening to it,.*,okay.
139 Now, could you make those adjustments someway.*.. *,..
Can you produce it in a form that they don't have-- to retype the damn thing, and figure out some appropriate reference to make to it, al,ong the lines that I have sug_gested.
That here are some places where we think clari,fication is needed, we have cited these, but we haven't supplied the ianguage and we would be glad to supply language later if you would like it. And then we could cite these areas.
MR. KELLEY:
It could go right in the_ end.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, and it would be_ submitted::'_
for the record.
Now, if they start to ask questions on it, that's fine.
Each Commissioner would be able to say what he thinks the clarification ought to be and Dick can always write a letter later on.
Okay, thank you very much.
(Whereupon the meeting was conclµded at 5:20 p.m.)