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