ML22230A192
| ML22230A192 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/04/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780404 | |
| Download: ML22230A192 (1) | |
Text
RETURN TO ECRETARI.AT RECORDS 1:,P.R REG(/(
.:::,e,'-
.q >-
! ~~0~1 Transcript of Proceedings
\\~/ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
",i,-?
't'o
- ii AFFIRMATION SESSION 78-1 (Open to Public Attendance)
Tuesday, April 4, 1978 Pages 1 _ l?
Prepared by:
C.H. Brown Office of the Secretary
\\
J DISCLAH+ER This is an unofficial transcript of ~i'rrtJ~9iWathe United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on------------~- in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been revie\\*ted, corrected, or edited> and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes..
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in ti1i s transcript do not necessarily reflect fina 1 determinati.ons or-beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or arg~1ment contained herein, except as the Commission may author-ize.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBJECT OF AFFIRMATIONS:
SECY A-78-18 Houston Lighting and Power Motion re South Texas Antitrust SECY 78-59 Amendments to Part 2 and 50 Antitrust Information Required in Certain Cases SECY 78-74 Miscellaneous Amendments to 10 CFR Part 2 SECY 78-86 Response to Letter From Environmentalist, Inc., Requesting Suspension of S-3 Rulemaking SECY 78-110 Proposed Revision of 10 CFR 2.802 Petition for Rulemaking SECY 78-140 Approval Under Section 145b for Employment of Paul R. Verkuil as Consultant and for Access to SECRET NSI Other than Restricted Data SECY 78-17 Petition for Rulemaking RPRM 50-19:
Parts 1 and 2, Underground Siting and Heavy Vacuum Containments SECY 78-99 Amendments to Table S-3; Response to NECNP Petition SECY 78-132 Adoption to Rule Change to Part 20; Petition by the State of Alaska on Containers SECY 78-48 Assessment of Environmental Impacts of Uranium Mills in Agreement States SECY 78-8 Response to the Commission Question Concerning the Protection of Strategic Special Nuclear Material Shipments SECY 78-143 Proposed Rulemaking for Certain Minor Quantities of Nuclear Material 1
Page 3
4 5
5 6
8 9
10 11 12 12
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
SUBJECT OF AFFIRMATIONS:
SECY A-78-17 Hearing on Nuclear Engineering Company's Application for Renewal and Expansion of the Operating License for its Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial Site; Sheffield, Illinois 1-A Page 13
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AFFIRMATION SESSION 78~1 (Open to Public Attendarice}
Commissioner's Conference Room Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
Tuesday, April 4-,. 1978 2
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:40 a.m.,
Victor Gilinsky, Acting Chairman, presiding.
PRESENT:
Commissioner Gilinsky, Acting Chairman Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford ALSO PRESENT:
S. Chilk, Secretary J. Kelley K. Pederson W. Magee
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3
P R O C E E D I N G S MR. CHILK:
The purpose of the meeting is to affirm eleven SECY papers on which the Commission has previoulsy voted and I would just like to go through each _of them and briefly brief the paper and indicate what your votes have been and request your affirmation.
SECY *A-78-18 HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER MOTION re SOUTH TEXAS ANTITRUST MR. CHILK:
The first is SECY-A-78-18. It is a request of the Houston Lighting:and,Power Company for the establishment of procedures for the consideration of the Attorney General's antitrust advice letter.
The General Counsel has recommended a draft order denying the Houston motion on the basis that the law requires that we follow the recommendations of the Attorney General.
All of you have approved and Chairman Hendrie's office has indicated they have no problem with it.
I ask now for you to confirm the vote.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
COMMI-SSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
MR. KELLEY:
And that recommendation being that we have a hearing.
SECY. 78-59 A,L'v1ENJ2MENTS : TO PART 2 AND 50 ANTITRUST INFO REQUIRED IN CERTAIN CASES MR. CHILK:
The second paper is 78-59, Amendments to
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4
Parts 2 and 50 concerning Antitrust Information Required in Certain Cases.
It is to obtain the Commission approval for the publication of a Notice of a Proposed Rule changing the requirements for submission of antitrust information in certain instances.
The staff has recommended the publication of the proposed record rule-making for 60 days.
All of you have approved the publication of the proposed rule and I ask for the affirmation.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
SECYt78-74 MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 2 MR. CHILK:
The third item is 78-74, Miscellaneous Amendments to 10 CFR Part 2.
The purpose:':hs to obtain Commission approval for the publication in final form of the various amendments to sections of the Rules of Practice.
These amendments are intended to facilitate public participation in the licensing application review and improve the coordination of states, counties.and municipalities and generally to approve.an; :Update "'o~f&-
~F~ Pj=!.;tt 2.
The staff has recommended approval for the publi-cation in the Federal Register Notice of the final rule.
Three of you have approved it and Chairman Hendrie's office
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 indicated there is no problem, and I ask for an affirmation.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
5 SECY-78-86 RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM ENVIRONMENTALIST, INC., REQUESTING SUSPENSION OF S-3 RULEMAKING MR. CHILK:
The next item is 78-86, it deals with a Respohse to a Letter from Environmentalists, Inc., Requesting Suspension of the S-3 Rulemaking.
They move the Commission to suspend the rulemaking until such times a~ necessary steps have been taken to ensure the imbalance between the nuclear proponents and the financial abilities of the citizens have been equalized.
The recommendation has been to *,,dispatch;-':':a-::-d-raft response denying this motion.
Commissioner Gilinsky has approved, Commissioner Bradford has approved with a comment.
The Hendrie office has approved as amended by OGC memorandum.
Commissioner Kennedy has approved as amended by OGC memorandum.
Commissioner Bradford subsequently revised the letter which has been circulated to all of you and all of you have concurred in that revision.
I ask you to affirm the vote.
CO£1MISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
SECY-78-110 PROPOSED REVISION OF 10 CFR 2.802 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6
MR. CHILK:
78-110, deals with the Revision of 10 CFR 2.802.
It is a Petition for Rulemaking of which under the rules any interested person may petition the Commission.
to issue, amend or rescind any r~gulation.
The staff requests that the rules be amended so that the statements in support of the petition set forth ~specific issues.
All of you have approved. Commissioner Bradford has approved with the exception of a change of one sentence which has been coordinated with all of you.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
SECY-78-140 APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 145b FOR EMPLOYMENT OF PAUL R. VERKUIL AS CONSULTANT AND FOR ACCESS TO SECRET NSI OTHER THAN RESTRICTED DATA MR. CHILK:
SECY 78-140 is the Approval Under 145b of the Atomic Act for the Employment of Paul Verkuil as a Consultant and for Access on the gentleman to Secret National Security Information other than Restricted Data.
This *gentleman is going to be the presiding officer of a hearing panel and all of you have approved his employment as a consultant, have authorized his access.
Commissioner Bradford made a comment with regard to the clearance, but he did approve the appointment, in addition to which there is also ---
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER:.,KENNEDY:
What is the effect of the comment concerning the clearance?
MR. CHILK:
The effect of the comment concerning clearance 7
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Do you have it right there?
MR. CHILK:
Yes, I have the problem.
He questions the cost involved and the time that it takes to get the clearance ---
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, but in particular the question that has to do with the difference between ::whether it would be "L" or "Q" clearance and why it takes longer to get the lesser clearance.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But it doesn't have any affect upon*. th.is particu*lar cas.e?_~-.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What we wind up doing is paying more for -- or we are somehow getting ourselves involved in a more elaborate clearance procedure because it takes too long to get the $7.50 clearance so you wind up getting the
$900 clearance.
MR. CHILK:
And I believe you have discussed that with the staff and we will send your:comments. down.. on the staff to be resolved.
In addition, there is an OGC memo COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That is just a normal practice.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't even want to leave an impression. "!bu, just pay and get the clearance.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm sorry, I did not mean to pointificate that, but there is a level of clearance that was adequate for,this case that is far less expensive, but which we chose not to do because it turns out it takes so much longer.
I was puzzled.
8 MR. CHILK:
But in addition to this, there is a memorandum from the Acting General Counsel for a Federal Register Notice to implement your action appointing a hearing board and at the time you approve this, I would like to request your authorization to issue that Federal Register Notice.
May I have your vote on that?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
SECY 78-17 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING RPRM 50-19:
PARTS 1 and 2, UNDERGROUND SITING AND HEAVY VACUUM CONTAINMENTS MR. CHILK:
The next item deals with SECY-78-17.
This.is a Petition for Rulemaking, Parts 1 and 2 Underground Siting and Heavy Vacuum Containments.
The Connecticut citizens Action Group and several other groups filed a petition for rulemaking to ask for three things:
One, that nuclear reactors be located below ground-level; secondly, that they be housed in sealed buildings, and
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9
, t~h-irdly"
- that a full-time federal employee be present.
We took care of the full-time federal employee previously, and this now involves the location of nuclear reactors below ground level and that they be housed in sealed buildings.
The petition was published for comment.
There were ten letters that have been received, none in support of the comment of the petition.
The staff has recommended publication of a denial of portions of the petition.
Subsequently, in response to comments from Commissioners Kennedy and Bradford, Mr. Minogue came back with a re-write of a portion of the Federal Register Notice with a draft public announcement and with expanded letters to the two congressional committees as requested by the two committees.
All of you have approved the staff's recommendation, and I request that you affirm your vote.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
SECY 78-99 AMENDMENTS TO TABLE S-3; RESPONSE TO NECNP PETITION MR. CHILK:
We originally requested SECY 78-99 be affirmed, however, I have since been notified that there are problems with it in two of the Commissioner offices, and we ar.e withdrawing that request for affirmation.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the title of that?
MR. MAGEE:
Amendments to Table S-3; Response to NECNP ---
MR. KELLEY:
It's the radon problem, I think.
MR. PEDERSON:
Yes, it is the value for the table for radon.
SECY 78-132 ADOPTION TO RULE CHANGE TO PART 20; PETITION BY THE STATE OF ALASKA ON CONTAINERS MR. CHILK:
The next one is SECY 78-132 which is an Adoption to a Rule Change to Part 20 in response to a Petition for rulemaking by the State of Alaska concerning labels on empty containers that the Department of Military Affairs in Alaska has requested an amendment, to require the removal or defacing the radioactive material lables on empty radioactive material containers.
The Commission has published a proposed rule.
A total of ten comments were received.
The ten comments were briefed, some in favor, some having some other minor changes in it.
The staff has recommended the publication of an effective rule.
All of you have concurred in that.
Commissioner_ Kennedy *:.. '*.. * -
requested that the Register be amended to include a fuller statement of the commenter:..svv.iews and that will be done.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That has been done?
MR. CHILK:
Yes.
I ask you to affirm the vote?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
SECY 78-48 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF URANIUM MILLS IN AGREEMENT STATES MR. CHILK:
SECY 78-48, which was an Assessment of Environmental Impacts of Uranium Mills in Agreement States 11 was originally scheduled for affirmation and I understand there*
is a problem in one of the Commissioner's offices.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Why don't we withdraw that which was a request from Commissioner Bradford's office.
We'.have three other i terns which we are adding to the list which were not PFeviously announced in which the public was not given adequate notice.
I would there£ore, ask for your concurrence to vote on SECY 78-8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Which is?
MR. CHILK:
-- which is a Response to the Commission Question Concerning the Protection of Strategic Special Nuclear Material SSNM Shipments, and SECY 78-143 which is Proposed Rulemaking for Certain Minor Quantities of Nuclear Material, and SECY.A--78-17 whibh invol:ves, a:.hearirrg.onc;Nuclear Engineering's application for a renewal and expansion of an operating license for its low-level radioactive waste burial site near Sheffield, Illinois, which I understand now you are ready to affirm.
Can I have a vote on short notice to do that?
COMMISSIONER.KENNEDY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 I.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
SECY 78-8 RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION QUESTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF STRATEGIC SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL SHIPMENTS 12 MR. CHILK:
The first paper then is SECY 78-8 which is the Response to the Commission Question* Regarding the Protection of Strategic Special Nuclear Material Shipments.
This involves approval for public comment of an amendment to 10 CFR Part 70 which would require the issuance of a general license to any.:=:person who possesses SSNM subject to a requirement for the purpose.of transportation.
All of you have concurred in that paper and the Hendri office has advised us there is no problem as far as they are concerned.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
SECY 78-143 PROPOSED RULEMAKING FOR CERTAIN MINOR QUANTITIES OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL MR. CHILK:
The next one is78-143 which was a Proposed Rulemaking for Certain Minor Quantities of Nuclear Material in which the Export License Study Group has reviewed the licensing criteria for some time and has requested or suggested a proposed rule which would establish or expand specific licensing provisions for the export of small quantities of special nuclear material.
- Three of you have concurred.
Chairman Hendrie's
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 office indicates there is no problem with it.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
SECY A-78-17 HEARING ON NUCLEAR ENGINEERING COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL AND EXPANSION OF THE OPERATING LICENSE FOR ITS LOW-LEVEL RADIO-ACTIVE WASTE BURIAL SITE; SHEFFIELD, ILLINOIS MR. CHILK:
The last item~_is a Hearing on the Nuclear Engineer Company's Application for the Renewal and Expansion of the Operating License for its Low-Lev~l Radioactive Waste Burial Site near Sheffield/
13 Commissioner Kennedy has approved it.
Commissioner Gilinsky has approve it.
The Hendrie office has indicated there is no problem, and I understand there is no problem and that you are going to approve it ---
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
MR. CHILK:
-- and I request that you affirm your votes at this time.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Didn't you approve that Peter?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
Let me just ask again --
I don't think I have any difficulty with it.
Is the recommendation based on the proposition that we should eventually be treating waste sites like license applications, that is, if we want to _set up the same appeals process for waste sites on a generic basis or are we just
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 talking* about _SJi.'effield?
- MR. KELLEY:
We are talking a~out Sheffield.
This is a one-case,ad hoc decision to. give these people who have petitioned for intervention an appeal subject to later Commission review.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But it is an appeal---
MR. KELLEY:
An appeal to the Appeal Board because the rules are now structured only to give the Appeal Board jurisdiction over Part 50 licensing, production utilization facility.
This is a materials license.
If there is a gap on the rule maybe it shouldn't be there, maybe it should be there, but on an ad hoc basis in this case, this just gives them an appeal to the Appeal Board on the merits of their intervention petition, which I think is an appropriate thing to do.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
They would otherwise though have an appeal to the Commission?
MR. KELLEY:
I'm not entirely sure of~the answer to that, whether they would have any appeal at all.
I would have to, frankly, look at the rules again, but I think a way to take another look at the denial of their intervention is to have the Appeal Board look at it.
That's what we have done in the past.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would just as soon we do that.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. KELLEY.:
I don't think you are c:uossing any policy bridge here at all.
15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, we. are not so long as it is clearly understood that this vote is an ad hoc-one-time decision having no precedent effect whatever.
MR. KELLEY:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It is?
Are we clear?
Because if we are not I *withdraw my vote.
I vote only on that grounds.and~the record should sb note.
MR. KELLEY:
Our recommendation is clearly an ad hoc-thi S,:-, case:: recommendation.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
With no precedent effect?
The Commission must state that it has no precedent effect or I do not vote and I withdraw my concurrence.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, is that part ---
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That was my understanding and if my understanding is incorrect then I withdraw and request that the item be withdrawn for further consideration.
MR. KELLEY:
I think that your understanding is correct.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You mean, you think my understanding is correct?
MR. KELLEY:
Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Does the Cornrhission see it that way?
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have no difficulty with saying that if we ever see another one of these it should be evaluated anew.
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's not quite the same as my.~statement.
I want it to have no precedent effect in ~ny case.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, what does that mean other than considering individual cases?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Any case of this kind or anything like it.
This has no precedent effect whatever.
It is as though it had not occurred as to the Commission's business except as to the Sheffield matter.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Right.
But doesn't that mean precisely we will evaluate any such case;~*anew?
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If that is the case, then my statement is correct, that it has no precedent effect.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
All right.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't think I have any trouble with that.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Okay.
Please make a note that that's the case for the courts decision.
MR. -,KELLEY:,,
The record will so reflect, no precedential effect.
MR. CHILK:
Do J then have an affirmation of your vote on A-78~17?
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
17 MR. CHILK:
That concludes the Affirmation Session.
(Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at 10:55 a.m.)
J