ML20196K460
| ML20196K460 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/01/1979 |
| From: | NRC - ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CONSTRUCTION DURING ADJUDICATIO |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NACCA, NUDOCS 9903260288 | |
| Download: ML20196K460 (59) | |
Text
. _ _ - _ _ . _-
Bligpq - L 3 .
V i
NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
/ i 1
l
?
IN THE MATTER OF:
l 5 SEVENTII MEETING i
ADVISORY COIGIITTEE ON NUCLEAR l i
POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION DURING ADJUDICATION l 1
,n \ ;
i
(
u} ,
ej l
I i
Place - Bethesda, Maryland I Date - Friday, June 1, 1979 Pages 1 - 58 l 1
<m -
i f .
F 9903260288 790601 PDR 10CFR
, PT9.7 ppg m.p%n.;
-( , (202)347 3700 ACE . FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OfjicialReporters 444 Nerth Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 h !
,'}' [ ] [ 13 NATIONW:DE COVERAGE DAILY -
E j~ DAILY l L'CR4821' I DUE:4Jun79'
~1
- ('% BURNS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
t' g,1 jrbi '
^2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY - COMMISSION
- ?
3
! t 4
5 SEVENTH MEETING 6 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR
. 7 POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION DURING ADJUDICATION 8
,e i 9 l 10 Room 415, Fourth Floor l East-West Towers 11 East-West Highway l Bethesda, Maryland 12 i
Friday, June 1, 1979 14 The meeting came to order at 9:30 c.L.,
15 MR. STEPHEN-OSTRACH, Acting Chairperson, presiding. I 16 MEMBERS PRESENT: MR. JOHN FRYE, MR. GEORGE SEGE, 17 MR. MYRON KARMAN, MR. BRUCE BERSON, MR. JOHN CHO, DR. DARRELL fs, 18 x, NASH, MR. BILL-LOVELACE, MR. TED QUAY. j
. '19 20 ,
21 l
l 22 l I
23 2
j O a.-o cm.,4 l 25 I
?
I f i
.~ ~ . - -..... - - - _ . ~ . . . . - _ . - . . - . . ~ . - . . - . . . . - - - - - . - - - - .
JRB2 2 1 P,_ Q Q'Q E,E_ Q I_ N_-Q Q I 2 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Good morning.
3 This is a meeting of the study group. As you 4 know, Professor Milhollin, who, as you know, is hard at work li in France, asked me to take his place for this meeting; and 6 I will be calling him on the phone next week. So I want
.- 7 you.to understand that any decisions that we make today or 8 any recommendations made on our behalf I will be transmitting 5
9 to Chairman Milhollin next week. So we do have some access l
l
.10 to the Chairman. l 11 MR. FRYE: I did speak with the Chairman yesterday.
_ 12 He called, and he seemed pleased with the progress we were
() 13 making in getting the questionnaires out for the workshop; 14 and asked that certain materials be sent to him in France --
.15 which I will do.
16 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: I assume that you are mailing 1
17 them to him? -- or do you feel you will make personal 18 delivery? i s
19 (Laughter.) I 20 MR. FRYE: I suspect the shuttle will take care of 21 .it.
22 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Perhaps the first item of 23 business today should be for the new members of the group to !
i 24 identify themselves.
ish.
.non.no como.nv
.25 Mr.' Karmen?
f c . . - - - -_. : . _ - _ - - , .- .-. - ,
jrb3 3
p_ 1 MR. KARMEN: Myrom Karmen, I am replacing 2 Bill Parlor on the committee.
3 MR. BERSON: My name is Bruce Berson, and I will 4 be helping Myron.
5 DR. NASH: Darrell Nash, replacing Miller Spangler. I l
6 NR. QUAY: Ted Quay, replacing Paul Collins. l
, 7 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: We welcome you aboard. l ll 8 The next item would be for a report on the
- l 9 questionnaire to the utilities which was sent out last week, )
10} I believe; and which I hope each of you has received i l
11 copies of now. I apologize if through my error I did not 12 assure that each of you got a copy of it.
p)
%, 13 George? Is there anything you would like to say 14 about the questionnaires?
15 MR. SEGE: Well, of course, not the results as 16 yet -- but I did talk to I guess a majority of the recipients l 17 to whom the letter was mailed before they got it; and they
. 18 Promised cooperation and gave me assurance that this is not 19 going to be a big project. I assured them as to that effect 20 in those cases where this problem arose.
21 I suggested that if it looked like a very substan-22 tial project to call us by all means, because we would not 23 want that sort of interpretation to be put upon the 24 questionnaire.
,r3 g'"j eounno como.av 25 Well, I had promises of cooperation from the r
l' L jrb4 4 i- 1 parties I contacted.
2 MR. QUAY: What number did you contact? Approxi-3 mately 137 4 MR. SEGE: Eight of the 13.
5 Gary made one contact before he left, and then 6 Steve talked to one, and I talked to the others.
. 7 MR. QUAY: Did any of them indicate any difficulty 8 in meeting the date?
9 MR. SEGE: None.
10 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: A second item of business 11 would be the opinion questionnaire which John Frye is 12 working on.
() 13 John, would you discuss your progress?
14 MR. FRYE: Well, I assumed that all the members 15 received a copy of the draft cover letter and questionnaire 16 to be sent to participants. In the process my thought would 17 be that this would go to both parties and attorneys,
~
18 intervenors and Staff, and utilities.
i 19 I think we need to discuss to a certain extent 20 how we choose this list of people. We certainly, I would j 21 think at this stage, would want to limit it to people who l 22 participated in construction permit proceedings. i
' 23 And the question there is, do we want to further j 73 24 limit it to the construction permit proceedings which have j%' Arportn3 Company l 25 reached final agency action? I
jrb5 5
l l (%) 1 -.
Or do we want to choose some other limitation ;
\_/
2 l for the list? '
3 And I would appreciate any views that the group ;
4 might have on that point. s 1 i
1 5 I would not want to see -- and I don' t know how '
6 great a danger there may be of this -- but I wouldn't want 1
- 7 to see someone arguing their case to us when it is pending 8 before the Appeal Board.
1 9 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Well, at least that problem 10 could be partially alleviated by appropriate discussion in 11 the cover letter.
12 But I understand your concern. The problem, of t'
(_)) 13 course, with placing that sort of a limitation on the 1
14 commenters is that it necessarily cuts us off from those 15 who are presently concerned with it; and also the most current 16 experience with the applications, particularly people who 17 have cons uction going on right now while adjudication is 18 underway.
19 It is possible at least since one of the subjects 20 we deal with is perception of agency fairness, the perception l 21 of people three or four years ago as to, let us say, the 22 legitimacy of the licensing board decisions, might have been l 23 different than the perception of it now; and, while three i
24 l- gwg Sa .wt.no comoev years ago people were willing to give a certain presumptive 25 validity to the licensing decision and not have a concern
l jrb6 6 about constrdction proceeding on that, conceivably it seems O 1 there's one possibility to me that now there is less 2
3 acceptance of the licensing board decisions and a greater 4 feeling of unhappiness of allowing construction to go ahead 5 on that basis.
6 It might be interesting to see if there is
. 7 that sort of a split between responses; and we would not get 8 to see that if we cut ourselves off from those most
- 9. currently affected.
10 And, of course, since we very early on made it 11 clear that none of us are going to take from this proceeding 12 anything that we intend to let affect whatever decision-() 13 making roles we have in adjudicatory proceedings -- we have 14 stated that we are going avoid the sort of problems you 15 mentioned, and we could to some extent reduce them by 16 appropriately wording the cover letter.
17 Nonetheless, it's a significant problem. And I 18 would like it if at least the other lawyer-members of the
"*- 19 group, and, hopefully, the other members of the group, would 20 discuss this.
21 MR. CHO: I think we ought to make the list as 22 comprehensive as possible, and include all those people l 23 with experience with the rule if time allows it.
l l
l g- 24 If the responses we receive rai'se some ex parte f R eprynng Company
, 25 problems, I think we could deal with them on the task group
)1 jrb7 7 l l
4 I
i f 1 itself by various means.
2 One obvious.means would be, of course, for those :
i 3 people involved in the adjudicatory process -- not to deal 4 with those, but there may be other approaches. l 5 MR. FRYE: Well, John,.perhaps you and I could l 6 work out some language to put in the cover letter that
. 7 perhaps might warn people to stay away from. the merits of 8 pending cases.
9 MR. KARMEN: This might be a good time for me to i
10 get a few words in as to the procedure which we plan to !
t 11 follow in getting these questionnaires to the gener i public. ;
12 I have been doing some digging into what is I
() 13 required before we sent questionnaires out. We seem to run 14 into a problem of 44 U. S. Code 3512 and the regulations 1
15 promulgated thereunder by the General Accounting Office, j 16 .which specifically indicates what requirements would be 17 necessary for clearance of the type of form that we are l L- 18 talking about.
19 Now it indicates, except as provided in 10.6 of I l
,.I 20 .this part, an agency shall not conduct response and collection 21 of information upon an identical item from ten or more 22 persons unless in advance of adoption or revision of any 23 plans or forms to be used in this collection -- you go through 24 a certain procedure to get GAO clearance.
d)a.wtaaemo.nv j 25 Now, it would seem to me that this questionnaire l
l
_.._.r._ . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _
.jrb7 7-A l
! I run smack into that problem because we plan to send it out 2 to a lot more than' ten people.
3 MR. FRYE: We've already exceeded that threshold.
4 MR. KARMAN: Well, that's a little -- I had no 5 idea that we sent anything out until just a few minutes ago.
6 I saw what I thcught was a form last week when ;
i e 7 we had the meeting, just you and John, Bruce and I, last.
8 Friday,LI thought that was proposed for utilities.
9 But now I understand it's been sent out.
10 (Chorus of: "Yes, I was, too.") !
l 11 MR. KARMAN: In digging into the proper method of 12 handling the general questionnaire, it would seem to me that j
() 13 time is of the essence if you are going to go and get 14 GAO clearance, there is a certain procedure which we'have to 15 go through within the Commission itself before we ever get 16 to GAO. <
17 We have to go to a reduction-in-paperwork-group,
?- 18 and it has to go through the Executive Dit . tor of Operations, 19 and then, 9 A te it is sent to the General Accounting Office, 7
20 w they have [54 days in which to issue a clearance on this l 21 thing.
22: -And it has been indicated to me that once you start 23 the process, you can pretty much figure on close to 90-days 24 before you first submit the papers within the Commission j g-) a.
- ug .oam como.nv 4
25 and until you get the GAO clearance. There's a possibility g
l
)
,ojrb8 E l 1 of shaving some time' off that, but it's not going to b m 2 heck of a lot.
l 3 There is an alternative which we can do, and that g
1 l 4 would be to - publish the questionnaire itself in the 1 l 5 Federal Register to the general public, and just put that i 6 Federal Register notice in an envelope to the people that l, 7 we wish to particularly respond to this thing, the list I i
1 8 that we had contemplated before. !
9 But, if'you are going to start putting additional f I
10 statements or requests, we will be - in my opinion --
11 circumventing the general purpose of this law and GAO-l I
12 regulation. -
13 MR. SEGE: I think the caution about staying away 14 from pending cases could be in the Federal Register itself, l
15 could it not?
16 MR. KARMAN: Oh, yuh, we could put anything in l
l 17 the Federal Register.
P-- 18 MR. SEGE: So the additional information would not
(
! 19 have to go into the cover letter?
l 20 . MR. KARMAN: Oh, no, no. That could be in what-I l
21 ever -- whatever we want could be in dhat Federal Register 22 . notice; and then you just put it in an envelope "for your I
, 23 information".
!- 24 MR. SEGE: Yes.
l a.pomn, como.nv
- 25 MR. KARMAN
- And these people certainly should be r
v .,7 -- -
-- 7., .y ..y. . - - - r -a, ,---r---, w.r - - . - - -
jrb9 9
~
1 aware of the fact that we are wanting, are desirous of ;
2 receiving this information from them.
3 Now, I don't know what is going to be with respect 1
l 4
to the stuff we sent out; I have had no idea it was already 5 sent out.
I i
6 MR. FRYE: Can we in sending copies of the Federal
. 7 Register notice enclose a cover letter?
8 MR. KARMAN: Well, that 's the problem.
~
\
9 MR. FRYE: That 's the problem? l 10 MR. KARMAN: I think if you are going to enclose 11 a cover letter, you will be doing by indirection what you 12 are prohibited from directly sending out. i
,r3
() -
13 MR. FRYE: If we say, "we are sending you copies 14 of the enclosed Federal Register notice" --
15 MR. KARMAN: "For your information".
16 MR. FRYE: We could say, "we are enclosing, we 17 are sending you a copy of this enclosed Federal Register i J-- 18 notice" --
19 MR. KARMAN: "For your information."
20 MR. FRYE: "For your information".
21 DR. NASH: Anything that appears in the Federal 22 Register I presume that anyone in the world that wants to l
23 comment on it --
gs 24 MR. KARMAN: That is correct.
vd e.mune como.nv 25 And that's the only way that you can get around I
l ,
jrb10 10 I
(~)
U this requirement, because you are not specifically singling 2
anybody out and saying, "we'd like this information from 3 you."
4 It's: "World, if you wish to respond, we'd like 5 to hear".
6 But that's not the best way to do it if we are
- 7 going to accomplish something if time is concerned; if time in 8' that much of the essence, it would seem to me that's the 9 only way.
10 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH : That strikes me as not in II any sense unsatisfactory.
I2 MR. FRYE: No, I think it would work very well.
13 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: And the cover letter could 14L obviously be an introduction to the questionnaire; and that 15 would almost require us to take the second of the alternatives 16 you suggested before -- adopt no limitation -- and it might 17 also lead to responses from people who have not participated 18 in licensing proceedings at all.
l9 But I don' t see why that would be particularly 20 bad. The worst that could happen is that they would be 21 n particularly useful.
22' MR. FRYE: Well, I think at least ce should ask 23 people to identify what proceedings they have participated r
24 in, to give us some sort of a frame of reference.
r3 j % - e.no c - o.nv 25 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Is the group agreed that
jrbli 11 l
(~3 1 that procedure outlined by Myron seems like a sensible way -.
'u) 2 of proceeding?
3 (Indications of assent.)
4 MR. SEGE: As far as identifying what proceedings 5 people have participated in, I assume that would be 6 voluntary? Wouldn't it? It could be suggested, but you 7 would not require the identification? I i
8,i MR. FRYE: No, they can put it down if they want 9 to.
10 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH : I imagine that to the extent 11 they are providing data on their experience they are going 12 to say, "when I participated in thus" --
A
(_) 13 MR. FRYE: The whole thing is voluntary.
14 Can we also, if we think it is advisable, can 15 we also issue a press release, perhaps? And we cou.1d enclose 16 a copy of the Federal Register notice?
17 MR. KARMAN: I don't know of any prohibition to 18 that. It might be something to look into.
19 MR. CHO: What will we gain from a pr(. - elease 20 MR. FRYE: You'd just get wider distribution.
21 MR. KARMAN: We will be getting the distribution 22 we are really interested in getting by just putting that 23 Federal Register notice to the people we would ordinarily 24 have sent the letters to anyway.
' (g s) a.nnno como.nv 25 Is that what you had in mind, John?
I t
-jrb12
- 12 I
What- additional' distribution' do we want?
2 We are going to be getting more now as a result of the 3 Federal Register notice than we would have.
i 4 MR. CHO:
On the other hand, I wonder whether you 5 can have too much publicity -- whether that's good for the 6 study?
- 7 MR.-KARMAN: Yuh.
Si MR. FRYE: Yuh.
9 MR. KARMAN: That's true.
l I 10l My answer is, I don't know of any prohibition; 11 but whether it is advisable would be something else.
12 MR. FRYE: I didn't mean I thought it would be, 13 I just raised it. 1 i
14 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Well, John, I think perhaps 15 the best thing for you to do would be in the redraf ting !
16 if you think it is necessary to take the questionnaire to a 1
17 I Federal Register notice -- ;
18 l* MR. KARMAN: Who has experience in that Federal 19 Register notice? I haven't; I've had very little.
20 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: I've had quite a bit.
i i 21 MR. KARMAN: Okay, 22 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: If you'd like any advice
- . 23 on " Federal-Registerese" we have a pamphlet that the 24 Government Printing Office, I believe, distributed on the
,, . a. w nno c e p.av 25 documented format they would like; and I would be glad to l
s
.- . - , ~ ~ ' ' '
jrb13 13 l
(~)'y . I give you a copy or work with you preparing it.
2 Once we get it into the Federal Register format, 3 I suggest we distribute it, you know -- distribute it once 4
around the group and incorporate any comments, and then go 5 ahead and send it off for publication without waiting for 6 another group meeting.
- 7 Does that seem ac: eptable? We've already seen 8, the suggested questionnaire?
- l 9 (Indications of assent. )
10 ! MR. SEGE: As far as the press releases, would it 11 be acceptable for John and/or Myron to consult with 12 Joe Fouchard concerning the advisability of a press release?
) 13 -- and get that advice as well as the feasibility to the 14 group, -- to take that into account; make a decision, and 15 not come back to the group, just have the group accept the 16 decision that John and Myron come to af ter the consultation?
17 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Certainly. I think Fouchard 18 has a better feel than any of us for the utility of a 19 press release in various circumstances.
20 MR. FRYE: Well, I have just two other items:
21 I just wanted to ask for any comments anyone might have on 22 the questionnaire, itself -- before we put it in final 1 23 form?
l l 24 And also to indicate ..at I thought to the extent fs
- Kj stoorung como.nv j 25 we can, I would like to get about a three-week response
l <. '
jrbl4 14 l l
I
' period.
1 2 Does anyone have any - thoughts along those lines, 3 that may be too short or too long. I think it would be !
j 4 helpful,.if we could, to get responses to the questionnaire !
l l5 in time to be able to use those responses, if we feel it's i
6 'a good idea, in planning for'the workshop. !
I - 7 MR. SEGE: .That means sort of around the 27th of 8 June, doesn't it?
I 9 MR. FRYE: Yes.
10 MR. SEGE: To allow a couple of days for looking i 1
11 over the responses before the information package for the 12 workshop participants has to be sent out? l I
( 13 MR. FRYE: That's roughly correct; yes.
14 If it went out -- next week h the first week in 15 June; the 7th is a Wednesday -- that would give about three l 16 weeks.
17 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: It will be very dif ficult 18 for us to get anything published in dhe Federal Register 19 before next" Thursday. And I would expect that the most likely 1 .
20 date that we'd get something published would be the Monday 21 after that.
L 22 Now, how would that fit into your schedule?
23 That's Monday, th e --
24 MR. FRYE: The lith.
!w .oon.no como.av l' 25 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: -- the lith. And three
-- . . . - - . . ~, . - . . - . . - - - -- . - ~ , - . _ . . ~
l-
)
l jrbl5 15
(}
l I weeks would --
2 MR. FRYE: Two weeks would take it to the 25th, 3 and the 29th is a Friday of that last week; you would have 4 almost three weeks. l 5 Now, I wonder if --
1 6 MR , SEGE: I would not press the timing that 7 much, John. It's the beginning of vacation season and 8i people have other. things to do. It might be better to allow
. l l 9.1 i them til the following Monday, just exactly three weeks; I
l 10 and then see what we can do with it in connection with the 11 workshop, even if the information packet for. the workshop 12 goes out, that could always be supplementary material
( 13 afterwards, as long as there's some reasonable time before 14 the workshop.
15 I don't think we should require responses to the 16 questionnaire by cutting the time too short on the specula- i 17 tion that die extra time couldibe helpful for the workshop.
18 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Myron, what is your view 19 on the propriety of mailing a Federal Register notice 20 which will be printed in the Federal Register on a certain 21 date?
22 MR. KARMAN: I don't have any problem with that. ]
l i 23 We've done that in the past. And what you can just say is
., p 24 "this is a notice which is being forwarded and it is I ju a.ow -4 c-no.nv '
25 anticipated that it will be published on such-and-such a l
l l
. . - , . . - . . - - . . . . . . . - . - . . . - . . .._ ..-. .. .,~ .... - - . .._.~-._-
1 i
o i Ljrbl6 16
~
[1("S. I date" -- if you want to'save' time on it?
1' v
2 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH : That would save us at least i 3 a: week.
4 MR. KARMAN: Yes, we can do that.
1
.. i 5 DR. NASH: As a new member I would.like to have a j 6 few days anyway to review this questionnaire, and if I
- 7 ' have any comments on it -- I don't think that will affect i 1
8 the schedule any; but I am not prepared to comment on it 9 today.
4 l 10 CHAIRPERSON'OSTRACH: As you heard, we are going i
i 11 to delay a few days anyway while it is translated from 12 English print into " Federal-Registerese".
13 .DR. NASH: Right.
I 14 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH : One of the few languages i.
15 I can interpret into. I 16 (Laughter.) i l 17 John, did you have another item?
'* 18 MR. FRYE: No, those .were the two items .
19 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Well, we've touched on it )
L 20 -once of twice, but, George, can you tell us --
r 21 MR. KARMAN: I would be glad to speak to Joe 22 Fouchard on 'the advisability of the press release, too; I'll
. 23 volunteer to do that.
I' :
24 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Fine.
!% n wnno como.nv
- j. 25 George,._the workshop?
I
.m, _
[1 l
l jrbl7 17 l.
I MR. SEGE: Let me pass out a rough draft of a I (O L >
2 general plan for the workshop.
'3 (Document distributed.)
4 I have discuss =d this with several members of 5 the study group. I thought that referring to this as we 6 go might be helpful.
7 The workshop is envisaged as a forum for t
8 discussion of the various options that we are considering 9 with respect to the immediate effectiveness rule and other i
10l - aspects of the committee's responsibilities.
Il l Chairman Milhollin asked that we schedule it for l
12 the third week in July, and we are tentatively planning on 13 a one-and-a-half-day workshop, July 18'and the morning of 14 July 19, Wednesday and Thursday of that week.
15 We are thinking in terms of --
f 16 CHAIRPERSON ~OSTRACH: Excuse me.
17 Do you want the group members to wait until you i
18 have finished this presentation, or do you want us to break 19 in when-something occurs to us?
20 MR. SEGE: Well, please break in if you like; if 21 it's something that I'm going to cover later then, instead 22 of answering it, I'll say, let's wait until I cover it.
1 23 Certainly, if there's a question, please break 24 O
l va e.wsma come.e, in; otherwise I am at your disposal.
25 The material I passed out shows the general plan i
I jrbl8 18 1 for the workshop which is also pretty much reflected in 2 draft outline for the information package that would be sent 3 out to workshop participants.
4 MR. QUAY: If I may interrupt?
5 You might state what the purpose of this workshop 6 is, for the new members?
7 MR. SEGE: Well, the general purpose of the l
8 workshop is to get discussion by people who have varying 9, litterests related to the adjudicatory process, varying 10 viewpoints leading to the process, concerning the principal 11 subject matter of this group's work, that is, the immediate 12 effectiveness rule and its possible repeal or modification; 13 and also the somewhat related matters of stays, interlocutory 14 appeals, and other aspects of the appellate process.
15 The discussors would be selected to provide 16 this range of significant viewpoints. They'will be selected 17 from industry, intervenor groups, the NRC Staff, and some 18 limited participation from others, those representing a 19 State or local government.
20 The agenda for the workshop shows a brief keynote 21 address, which could be possibly b3 Commissioner, if we 22 can gain the participation of a Commissioner; to be followed 1
23 by introductory remarks by our committee chairman, who will 1
24 also be the workshop chairman, to explain in detail the Reporhng Company 25 objectives, the scope, the structure of the workshop, the f
. _ .~. . . _ _ _ . - - - ~. .__ . _. ._. . . . . ._ _ _ . . . _
4-jrbl9 19 1 general arrangements for it.
2 I believe that for the workshop to succeed, the 3 preparations must be quite thorough, and that includes !
I 4 sending out the information package that states briefly l 3 enough for people to be able to read it all, but clearly, 0 exactly what it is we expect of the workshop; and what
. 7 the subjects are that would be discussed, the groundrules for l
8, those discussions; and have that prescription precise I 9 enough so when people get into die discussion groups they i
10 have a clear option of discussing things exactly according 11 to the guidelines. I 12 At the same time the guidelines should provide b 13 for sufficient latitude for perceptions and viewpoints 14 that we did not anticipate to be brought to bear; and that .
I 15 the guidelines, themselves, would provide the specifics, 16 absent the discussion group itself developing a discussion 17 along different lines.
'- Anyway, af ter this rather short plenary session, 18 19 the workshop-would break into three separate discussion 20 panels, where there would be somewhere between five and 21 eight discussants in each group.
l 22 These panels would each undertake some identified 1
i 1
23 major segment of the overall subject matter of the workshop.
24 I will come to this in somewhat more detail. The middle 7-
,u ( f zunnei.omo.nv
- ' 25 of the1first stage of the agenda lists the panels, l'
l l
1 ..
. _ . . . . - . . . . . - . - . - ~ - . - _ _ - - . . . . . - - . - . - - - -. .-
i hrb20 20 i
( ',
i i j I the -immediate versus ' delayed ef fectiveness issue, which g 2 also includes factors that' might defuse the immediate - 1 l l 3 effectivness issue, such as early settlement of site-related
.4 questions.. 1 5 Panel Two, various approaches to selected l
l 6 application.of immediate-effectiveness.
7 And, Panel Three, stays and appellate procedures, l 8 including especially- the issue of interlocutory . appeals , i 9 These. panelidiscussions would take up approximately l i
10 four hours, to be followed by preparation of panel reports.
11 Then the next morning --
1 12 CRAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Excuse me, George?
1
\'
13 Do you perceive these panel reports as being l
! 14 oral notes for the panel chairmen to deliver? I J
. 15 MR. SEGE: Yes, they would be oral notes for 1 16 the panel chairmen to deliever; but the chairman would have 17 the. option of writing them, of writing it out. They would j 18 be delivered orally.
\
19 The plan that we are suggesting now includes 1
.. 1 20 verbatim record of full proceedings, so exactly what was said )
21 would be available afterwards for reference. But the reports l
22 would be prepared for presentation, either as notes or 5
23 written out.
i i' 24 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH:
Jo you expect to task the Reportmg Company
, 25 chairmen with subsequently writin'g up the panel group? I P
y ..- #,. w . . - - . =,. . , ,
-4 , ,,_,y.- _., --,..,---r
1 jrb21 21 i j
1 know in previous workshops the chairmen, of whom I was 2 scheduled to be one, were surprised after the workshop was i i
3 over to be asked for a written report.
4 I think you ought to make that very clear to these .
I 5 people whether or not they would have any obligation after l l
6 the workshop is over to reduce their group's feelings to -
-' 7 writing.
8 MR. SEGE: What is the group's feeling on that 9 subject?
10l CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: There are both advantages 11 and disadvantages to it, obviously.
12 There are two disadvantages to requiring such
() 13 a document: first, it might act'as a potential deterrent 14 to panelists' participation -- to panel chairman participa-15 tion; it's one thing to commit yourself to come for two 16 days and brainstorm. It's another to commit yourself to 17 writing something.
18 Another disadvantage' which might not be immediately i 19 apparent is that to some extent that gives us the creation 20 of documents that will have more impact than any public 21 comments or any other matters; and that might not be neces-22 sarily a disadvantage. It might give us something to really 23 work on. The obvious advantage, of course, is the converse -
t i 24 of that second disadvantage: it gives us something concrete a.=tm como.nv 25 that we can look at, that was thought-out, and coherent and
l-
- -jrb22 22 l
l- - I con sis te nt ~.
Ot 2 John? l l
3 MR. CHO: I have mixed feelings.
r But, if, as 4
. George indicated, the entire proceedings including each 5 panel proceeding, will be reported, I don't see the neces-6 sity for. a written report - from the chairmen; although I l
. 7 grant it will make our work' easier, because presumably the 8'
chairman will have sunmarized the discussion of his group. l 9 But I would lean-toward no final report, written 10l report, by.the chairmen.
11 MR. SEGE: That would be my present feeling, too.
12 I. think maybe we should leave it open for the moment.
j) 13 But experience shows that when you have three 14 panel chairmen, one will write a report promtply; and the 15 other will get around' to it in a week or two; and the 16 third one -- although I am not a dentist, I would say it's 17 like pulling teeth.
18 And we are going to need whatever we do, we will 19 need to do fairly promptly after the workshops in order for
- 20. the results to be reflected in our analyses and formulation 21 of our recommendations; we will be entering the rather '
22 intensive analytical and writing phase of our work at that 23 time.
24 jw ),um como.ev So I would think that with the record available 25 of the chairman's report and his discussion, and with the I
jrb23 23 l
1
(]. I work available from members of the committee, I think that 2 perhaps at that point the further work on the results of the l I
3 workshop will be taken over by the committee. I l
4 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Just leave it as voluntary 5 for the chairmen, preparation of a written report would be 6 voluatary and optional.
~
7 MR. SEGE: That's good.
8 MR. CHO: George, you mentioned the groups that 9 would be represented at the conference. Were you planning 10l to discuss how the participants, themselves, would be Il selected?
I2 MR. SEGE: Yes. Yes, I will come to that. l r% '
l 13 Anyway, the second morning would consist of 14 i reports by the -- and discussion of the results -- of each l 15 of the panel discussions, this time in plenary session; 16- and the structure of each would be a report by the panel 17 chairman, which would not necessarily be a summary of a 18 consensus, but, rather, a listing of the viewpoints that 19 came out.
20 But if any of the panel members felt that the 21 chairman did not correctly represent those views, there 22 would be an opportunity for a minority report.
23 And then a floor discussion, discussion by the 24' 73 entire workshop of the report of Panel One, and the same wv%wono cm nv 25 repeated for Panel Two and Panel Three.
ll
e l l
jrb24 24
\
{}
\
1 And, finally, a period would be available for R 2 general discussion of overall issues of construction during l L
l 3 adjudication, cutting.across the areas assigned each of I' the panels.
4 '
l ,
I
!- 5 The general guidelines for the discussion which 1
6 haven't been draf ted yet would outline the objectives, the 7 scape, a general description of the work requested of the I
8; workshop participants to try to convey this mixture 'of ie 9 clarity of guidelines for each of the panels, and the latitude I
10 that you want the panel members = to exercise, so you get the l
11 benefit of viewpoints beyond what you were able to 12 anticipate.
13 Then we have begun the work, I have drafted a i I ja strawman guideline for the first two of the three panels.
15 The guidelines describe the scope of the discussion and 16 identify general questions.
L 17 Panel No. One concentrates primarily on what in :
18 our interim reports we had called " option-1" and " option-2";
19 option-1 being retention of the present system, including 20 the immediate effectiveness rule; and opti6n-2 being an 21 option for delaying the effectiveness of board decisions 22 until some point of closer approach to finality of the 23 decision within the agency.
l l . 24 The scope and the questions are so structured
!v. . a. w n , c - o.nv 25 that there is discussion around the edges of the issue, and i
-4..r v. ~ -
, m ..-.,---$ a
E .
l "jrb25 25
(} .1 some deliberate overlap about the panel. There is a whole 2 set .cxE issues for. each' panel, and some overlap around the i
3 picture.
4 'The first panel notably would be asked to i .-
5 concentrate on identification of criteria that should' govern 1
6 change of the present system, and.also -- question-4 -- to l
7 comment on various' things not connected to immediate l *~
8 'effectivness if if implemented could conceivably defuse
.theimmediateeffectivnessissuesomewhatormakecontroversy!
~
9 10 less likely or narrower.
11' Maybe I'll pause for about half-a-minute so 12 you-can scan the guideline for Panel One.
l 13 (Pause.)
14 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH : You are going to be receptive i 15 to comments that we'll send you next week?
16 MR. SEGE: Definitely, definitely.
17 I am goin g to ask for comments af ter I finish t . s
!* 18 describing the present plans, any immediate comments that H
19 the group now has; and 'there are certainly comments that 20 will be forthcoming later, and those will be welcome.
21 (Pause.)
, 22 As to Panel Two, this. panel. deals with three types i
I 23 of possible modification cf tne immediate effectivness
- 24 . rule, which were identified as options-3, 4, and 5 in our j Reporting Company i ' 25 . interim report.
l.
I jrb26 26 l I
/; 1 And these are, in turn, restricting immediate I
()
2 effectivness to those type s d cases where immediate effectiv-3 ness is least likely to create problems. That's option-3. .
l l
4 Option-4, restricting the amount of work that the 5 applicant may do on reliance on a board's initial decision. )
1 6 And option-5, allowing immediate effectivness I l
- 7 only if the construction permit or LWA has conditions 8 attached.
. I I
9l As with the previous panel, there are some questions i
10 that deal with the fringes of the issue, asking for 11 combinations of modifications that may be advantageous, 12 and asking for the panel members' general sense of the r-k_)r 13 merits of the options in this category as well as the options 14 assigned to other panels.
15 And Panel Three, I did not try a hand at it. I 16 think it's probably best to get further first-hand work 17 on that by a lawyer-member of the committee; and I will 18 make such a request after this meeting.
19 And let me p.use again for half-a-minute again 20 for people to glance at the guidelines for Panel Two.
21 (Pause.)
22 On the last page of the draf t I passed out lists t
23 the general approach to composition of each of the panels.
gs 24 The specific subject matter of each of the panels will be
- ( a.-nno como.nv 25 taken into account in selecting the particular representative
- s l
, _ . . _. _. . . . _ _ _ _ - . . _. . . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ m
, jrb27 27 !
! /] 1 of those groups.
l (/ ,
2 For example, Panel Two, there are technical and 3 environmental sort of considerations for which somebody with 4 a technical background could be quite helpful; and Panel 5- Three, that is going to be so legal we'are going to have 6 particularly lawyer. participants.
7 If there is a local government representative, 8, in other words, for example, then Panel Two might be an 9 appropriate panel for him tc participate in.
I 10I What I' propose to do in terms of specific plans is 11 that after this meeting I will ask a smaller group -- Ted 12 . Quay, John Frye and Myron Karman -- to meet with me as a
("h
\d 13 little working group to work out the details; and each.
14 person has agreed to work with us on this.
15 I have a starter list of a few names that we 16 can discuss at the time, as well as such things as selection 17 of hotel, paying or not-paying participants, arrangements 18 for getting them, and that sort of thing.
19 Any n4mber of the committee who has not so far 20 been tapped to contribute to this work, and who would like 21 to, would be most' ,1come to participate in our little 22 detailed planning meeting that will follow this session.
l 23 A: our little meeting, I would welcome any sugges-t i u.g7 24 tions for names of people, any' suggestions on the general a.ws.no como.nv j 25 structure of the seminar; a. any specific comments l
l l
t r- - ,
n
i jrb28 28
(, j I on the very preliminary sort of material that I have prepared 2 so far.
3 I would like to call attention to one particular i 4 aspect I discussed with John Frye -- the relation of the 5 workshop to the opinion questionnaire:
6 You will notice that there is a quite close l
7 relation, and both John and I think that this is quite l l
i
, 8l: appropriate. The questionnaire people will be working by 9l themselves, providing information, and and some of the i
10 questionnaires providing perceptions and viewpoints; but the II sort of elicitation of perceptions and view that comes from 12 the challenges of debate of people holding contrary views,
~
- 13 or even others holding similar views -- that 's perceiving ]
14 issues from a different viewpoint -- could be quite helpful 15 and the workshop would be furthering whatever is accomplished 16 by the responses to the particular ques tionnaires .
I7 We thought that it might be better to structure 18 the workshop in a somewhat parallel way to the questionnaire-19 recognizing that the guidelines would differ in those 20 respects that are necessary to elicit discussion and debate 21 as distinguished from questionnaire answers.
22 We thought it would be better than to try to 23 codify along different lines, and then have substantial
/~T 24 correlation problems.
' VQl Asoorteg Company 25 So this brings me to the end of wha t planning has l
I
I.
'jrb29 29 p
l been done, for an outline of what planning has been done so
! 2 far. I l
3 Oh, I might mention that for a while I was thinking 4 of us getting a contractor to do the arranging, but my own 5 experience with contractors and the experience of others,
)
6 I suggest that the amount of legwork that a contractor could
,a 7 'save in setting up such a workshop is not that different 8 from the amount of legwork it takes to set up the contract 9 and then to try. to supervise the contract; especially in an I
10 area where there is no contractor that has close knowledge 11 of. the particular issues and subject matter of the workshop, 12 so the intellectual contribution wouldn't necessarily be
(
13 -- it would be somewhat limited.
14 So the way we are going now is to arrange the .
15 workshop ourselves, on decisions of the committee as a whole, 16 and by' the detailed work of committee members who choose 17 to help in the details.
18 As far as participation of committee members l 1
19 at the workshop itself is. concerned, we thought that the j l
20 chairman of each of the panels should be someone not e member 21 of thir. committee; that members of the committee should 22 function primarily as resource persons, a lawyer and a 23 technical man at each panel, and the rest to float among L i 24 the different panels.
+ .wm cem 25 That is about it, Mr. Chairman, and I would
_ -. _ _ . _ _ . ~ ~ . . - _ . _ . . _ . __ ._ . __ ._. _ . . _ . _
jrb30 30 l r') /
I welcome the general reaction of the group to the plan at this 2 point, as well as any specific comments thm you are ready )
l 3 to make now;.although specific comments as far as the general 4 arrangement is concerned, it would be good to ge them in 5 within a dsy or two. As far as details of the guideline l
6 material is concerned, that can -- that is going to remain i i
l
- 17 open until approximately two weeks before the workshop.
l i
8 And I expect as a final draft is available, it ,
9 will be circulated for specific comment and inputs of what 10 should be considered in the redrafting would be welcome.
11 'As far as suggestions of names of participants 12 are concerned, it is going to be a long process -- but the
( 13 sooner the better. If anyone has suggestions for names, 14 the sooner those suggestions are made, the better; because 15 we do need to' start on that, like, this afternoon or Monday.
16 CRAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Well, I have two comments, 17 one general, one more specific:
18 The general question is: do you list the workshop 19 as being generally open to the public?
20 MR. SEGE: Yes, I ne.glected to mention that.
21 It is open to the public, and the room sizes will 22 be selected in such a way that some reasonable guestimate j 23 as to how many members of the public might show up would be
. reasonably accommodated.
lha.ommcomo.24 nv 25 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Do you have in mind l
1 l
l i jrb31 31 l. l l j)s 1 including public discussions or comments during the workshop 2 sessions?
J 3 MR. SEGE: My suggestion would be to do it in a l.
4 very limited way, that 'the workshop is primarily a 5 discussiot. among the selected discussants; and then the 6 chairman of the workshop, and the chairman of each panel, 7 would use his discretion in noting whether it is deszred 8, to make public comments; and then perhaps at a suitable time I
9 set a limited time aside for people to make statements.
10l So this is going to be a day and a half, it is l 11 going to be fairly crowded on the agenda; so the opportunity 12 for public statements will be limited.
() 13 I don't think that there would be an outcry for )
14 substantially many statements anyway, and the fact that the 15 opportunities were limited may not cause any particular !
16 difficulty. I 17 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Two other points: !
'18 First, I am going to have to be issuing the i 19 Federal Register notice in the next week or so for the 20 group's next meeting. Would you like that notice to l 21 mention the workshop? I 22 And, secO;.2, would you, if it did, would you like i
l' 23 it to indicate that members of -- that individuals could I
gg 24 nominate themselves or suggest themselves for participation
- vy m oorimo como.av
! 25 on the panels?
..- - .- -_ _ _ _ - -__ . . . . . ., .- - .~.
I i
jrb32. 32 l
I And, of course, it's not just you, but I call that 2 to the attention of the group?
3 MR. SEGE: I didn't think of that subject of l
l 4 people offering themselves as discussants.
5 I suppose we could always turn them down?
6 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Sure.
7 MR. SEGE: Do you have comments on that?
'8 MR. QUAY: If you turn them down, I think you are 9 going to have a real negative effect on this thing.
10 You can offer the proposition that members of the l
11 public attend and time will be offered for them to make !
12 a statement concerning the panel discussions.
13 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: It's just that George 14 'i ndicated that he felt that it might be very difficult for 15 line up the right mix of people for the various panels -- I 16 and I can see a very lengthy series of telephone calls 17 to Smith and Jones and Brown; where, if qualified people 18 call and indicate their willingness, it would potentially 19
, save an awful lot of George's or Bruce's or whoever is going 20 to have to do the telephoning around.
21 I recognize there are some difficulties in saying 22 no to people, but considering that we are going to try and 23 get a balanced composition on the panels, I don't think that dp a.wma como.nv24
-- I think we could avoid any problem with discriminatory 25 rejections.
7 Y X-
. _ ~
l-l j rb33 33
! (~S 1 MR. QUAY: What about stating qualifications for
()
2 meraars in the Federal Register notice, and then if someone 3- not qualified comes in, it won't be difficult to determine.
4 'f I can speak to that -- I guess I have to take 5 the position that I think it would be much better if we 6 went to the additional trouble of individually contacting the 7 people we want to serve. Although I recognize it will be 8 more effort, we are more likely to get the kinds of results 9; from these panels -- more -- by doing it that way, than Le 10 would be opening it up to people to suggest themselves.
11 MR. QUAY: I would agree with you. We would hold 12 it to a last-minute-scramble if we ask people to nominate
) 13 themselves, trying to find appropriate members for panels 14' that nobody's volunteered for and so forth.
15 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH : It was suggested as a 16 possibility of widening the panelists beyond our personal 17 sphere of knowledge; but if anyone is opposed to it, I 18 wouldn't push it.
19 I believe I am leaving the planning of the workshop 20 up to George and the other people.
21 MR. CHO: On the other hand, by receiving volunteer s
! 22 I think one would tend to get more interested people, 23 people who were really interested in the particular item; g3 24 and, as far as being able to reject them is concerned, I
-V ) Reporting Company 25 think the proper laying-out of the background statement
IL I
l -jrb34 34 by which selections will be made -- I think we could minimize
- -('N 1
%)
2 that problem.
3 I do agree that is a problem.
I 1 4 MR. FRYE: Perhaps'there is a way around it.
5 :Perhaps if we asked the public to nominate participants --
6 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Rather than panelists?
7 MR. FRYE: Instead of nominating themselves, 8 instead of asking for volunteers to serve on the panel, 9 3 we ask the public to nominate people they feel would make i
10 a contribution.
11 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: You would not prevent somebody 12 from nominating himself?
O'- 13 MR. FRYE: No.
14 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: But by phrasing that way --
15 MR. FRYE: Yes.
16 MR. KARMAN: This would all be in the Federal 17 Register notice? l
~
18 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Not entirely. I expect most 19 of it would come from the process George was describing, 20 selecting the basic corps.
21 MR. FRYE: If we ask people to nominate panelists, 22 then we are still free to go out and contact those of our l
23 own.
es 24 MR. KARMAN: My feeling is we are going to ~get the
- 4. Reportog Company 25 same group of nominees anyhow; there is a limited numbe r l
i
m-- ,
35 jrb35 f"S 1 of people who would have some sort of expertise.
%-) ,
2 MR. FRYE: That's certainly true. l I
3 MR. SEGE: '
I guess, Mr. Chairman, my inclination 4 is not to ask people to come forward and not to ask for the 5 public to nominate; but to get that sort of advice in a lower 6 key by contacting people we know might know, might be l l
- 7 knowledgeable of particular areas to make nominations.
8 MR. CHO: I favor John's approach. It has the 9 distinct adsantage of making the panel appear to be -- and 10 it actually will be -- much more open or less-structured, I 11 less-directed by the group here.
l 12 _ And I think there is real advantage to that.
) 13 that Myron says is true, in the end, as far as participants 14 are concerned, you'll have the same people anyway.
15 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: My inclination at least, 16 George, -- I don't want to disrupt the planning for the 17 workshop, certainly -- bu*. .ny inclination is that there is 18 always the possibility that there is an inbreeding; that 19 there's a certain group of participants in the nuclear 20 licensing business, whom we are all familiar with to a 21 greater or lesser extent, and who we tend to associate with 22 certain positions.
23 And there might be a tendency to say, let's see, s 24 intervenors -- that means A, and B, and C.
d a.ne.no corno.nv 25 And we've heard their arguments before, and to some
jrb36 l 36 l
I (") I extent we know their arguments; and their names spring to lV mind.
2 1
3 Getting at least -- offering -- the opportunity 4 for people you wouldn't think of to be part of this group, l
i 5 presents a possibility of bringing fresh viewpoints into this 61 situation.
7 Now, as Myron points out, it's quite possible 8, that if we can't think of anybody, they wouldn't be interested I
9[ anyway; so nothing is really lost by this.
10l If unqualified people present themselves, or are i
11 presented, nothing is lost.
12 If it could be aacommodated without distrupting
,--~
, ks 13 the plans of the group and functioning of the workshops, 14 I would suggest that we at least in the Federal Register 15 notice mention that there is at least tentatively scheduled 16 this workshop, and mention that the panels will be made up 17 -- that the group is looking for panelists right now, and 18 is contacting them directly -- but is prepare d to consider e
19 nominations from the public, submitted by members of the 20 public of qualified persons with experience -- I don't even 21 know if we have to say "with experience" -- particularly 22 those with experience in the nuclear licensing process.
l 23 MR. SEGE: All right.
73 24 And nominations should be accompanied by a statement
(.) auming c-o.nv 25 of those qualifications of the nominee that make him 1
l
i i i y
jrb37 37 ]
I
- ( } l particularly valuable as a discussant. 1 2 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH
- And, fur thermore , some way 3 of reaching the nominee promptly, so we could -- q l
4 MR. $2GE: Yuh -- address -- )
l l
~ .
-5 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Phone number --
i 4
( 6 MR. SEGE: --
yes; and why he would be good.
l 7 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Yes.
I 8 Because the ~ timing will be such that you will have 9 : to get in touch with these people virtually right away to l ]
i 10 see if they are interested.
i 11 MR. SEGE: Y2 . l 12, CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: We'll, perhaps since I tend
'h I
[~/
N- 13 to have the responsibility for writing Federal Register j
4 14 notices, and George is in charge of the workshop, George and i
15 I can _get together next week and add this language to the ]
16 next Federal Register notice. We can work that out.
17 The other comment I had on the workshop was
~18 the workshop will be shortly after we have received the
~
19 results of. the Federal Register questionnaire. 'It might 20 be. helpful -- I don't know if this can be accommodated in 21 'the schedule -- if perhaps the chairmen of the workshops '
remarks' included a orief discussion of comments that had
~
22 23 been received on-the questionnaire, some summary of them,
^
r %. 24 perhaps, or what the perspectives that existed were -- just Q a. 1,no c m .nv 25 to give the-panelists some feel for perhaps a wider range
r i
l jrb38 38 l
1 of vieupoints. -.
t
{]s l
2 MR. SEGE: Yes.
3 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: I don't know if that will be 4 possible to work out in time, but I would like to see it?
5 MR. SEGE: Oh, I would think that would be much l
6 less of a problem than having the results affect the ways 7 the guidelines and questions themselves are raised; because 8 those will have to go out ahead of time; whereas Gary's l
9l1 speech can be prepared the previous night.
i 10f CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: And it no doubt till.
II' (Laughter.) ,
l 12 MR. QUAY: Was there some reason why we are I r~N
(-)
13 scheduled for mid-July? l 14 It looks like everything we are doing is really j 15 pressing upon maybe moving it back a week or two. I know 16 Gary's intention is to write up this report in August and l
17 September. I 18- MR. SEGE: Well, it seems to be approximately the 19 right time, and I did not question Gary about his reason for 20 choosing that particular week rather than a week before or 21 after. I r
22 I would think that the second half of July seems l
23 about right in the sense that we will be ready for it, r- 3 24 and it still allows reasonable time to take the results of tae K) nemna como ,v 25 workshop into account in the preparation of the final report.
I I
. .-. _ . - _ - __ _ , ~ ~ . _ - _ _ .~. _ .. . _ . _ . _ . _ ... _ _. _ . . - -. - . -_ _._
jrb39 l 39 l
-( l I would think that two weeks later would still 2 meet these constraints; but I didn't explore any other date 3 with Chairman Milhollin.
4 MR. QUAY: Because we are compacting everything i i
b into -- the Federal Register notice, asking for nominess, 6 and.the contacts involved in that -- it looks like you are 7 compacting quite a bit into the last couple of weeks before i
I 8 that workshop.
9 MR.'KARMAN: You may very well be right.
I 10 MR. GEGE: Perhaps --
11 You know, if it's not that critical MR. QUAY:
12 for scheduling -- and it wouldn ' t appear ' to be, at least --
13 we could very easily move it back two weeks; and that would 14 be considerably more beneficial.
15 MR. SEGE: I wouldn't move it back more than two 16 weeks.-
.17 MR. QUAY: No, I am not suggesting --
- 18 MR. SEGE: But one or two weeks I would think .
19 would not constrain us'too much at the tail end of it.
20 MR. Ph7E: The sould be the first or second of 21 Augus t?
22 MR. SEGE: Well, that would be the '3rd of August.
23 MR. FRYE: How about one week, then?
fg 24 MR. SEGE: Yuh.
W.j Aeocrtog Company 25 MR. FRYE: ' The 25th and 26th?
~ -
i
- 'jrb40 40 1 i
I
- .( ). I MR. SEG$
- Well, that might be too late; we have I
< 2 a regularly-scheduled meeting the 3rd of August.
J 3 MR. QUAY: How about one week? I 4 MR. CHO:
i What are you really gaining in that one 5 week?
l 6l MR. QUAY: We are asking for nominees from the t
- 7 public, you know, that could come in the last week and 8,
4 we're scrambling around setting up panels; and we ask for
}*
! 9 commerts from the public, and that's coming in the last 10 week -- I assume some of them are going to be late.
ll j And we are trying to digest the entire package of i 12 material prior to having this workshop.
13 MR. CHO: I suspect if the Federal Register notice l
1 I 14 goes out as is contemplated with the appropriate background 15 statement there, I am not sure that people will need that 16 -much time if they are really interested in making nominations, 17 I think we can use as much time after the 18 conference, utilizing- the results that come out of it much I I
19 better then.
20 MR. KARMAN: You like the time at the end of it, 21' rather than --
22 MR. CHO: Right, rather than utilizing the time 23 now for a lot of preliminaries.
(" 24 Reoortog Company And if we can do the proper planning, of course, -l
- i. 25 realizing you have a certain amount of time to do that,
r
'jrb41 41 i l
7"N 1 we can use the time for planning and still meet the b
2 conference date that we set up for, I think we should-do so.
3 MR. QUAY: In one thing we performed recently, we 4
sent out a Federal Register -- sent out several form letters l 5
-- asking for a response within a certain period of time; J
t .
6 l
and it just went well beyond that before we really got any-l 7 thing substantial back. It was incredible.
Si MR. CHO: In view of people's tendency to wait i
- 9 until deadlines anyway --
i 10$ MR. QUAY: Yuh, they well-exceeded the deadline.
Il MR. SEGE: And then something comes up that last 12 afternoon.
l
() 13 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH : George, I'll be speaking 14 with Gary next week. It was he that selected the date of 15 the 18th or 19th; so I'll ask him if he feels that it can 16 be slipped one week, and tell him what the considerations 17 are -- we'll try and rough-out by then --
'a 18 MR. FRYE: He may have had some very strong reason 19 for that.
l .
_2 0 CHAIRPE' :T:RACH: Yes, he may not be available l 21 the.next week.
22 MR. SEGE: Yes. That 's right. I don't.know why 23 he picked'that date.
4 24 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: So I'll check with him if wy g-)a
.co m como.nv 25 he views the gain to outweigh the loss.
l L
1 I
L l
j jrb41 41 a l
1 MR. BERSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment which 2 may potentially impact on scheduling, and it's essentially 3 a legal question. l
~4 It was. triggered by my understanding that we'are ]
l 5 going to be bringing in various people representing various 6 viewpoints for discussion -- and that's the applicability of 7 the Federal Advisory Committee Act to what we propose to l
8 do . -
l 9 I am no expert on it, but there are certain l
10 strictures that if the Act is applicable, we have to go l
l 11 through some sort of chartering process.
I 12 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Well, we are a chartered j 13 advisory committee already, this group is. 4 14 MR. BERSON : Okay. I see.
CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: And I was going to treat the '
l 15 16 workshop as a meeting of this advisory committee, since we'll 17 all be there at various timcs and we will be discussing
- things with each other, and I was going to treat it as a l 18
-19 special meeting, unlike our first-Friday-in-the-month l 20 meeting.
21 And notice it. As a matter of fact the notice l- 22 we are talking about that would propose nominees would give 23 notice that it would be intended not only for the Eighth 24 Regular Meeting -- July 6th, or whatever -- but it would also
% Reportong Company 25 be that the Ninth Meeting will be as part of the workshop
l
[1 l' I
.jrb42 42 ,
b I on July-whatever-it-is -- et cetera, et cetera -- as part of l :[ }
2 that workshop.
i 3 And so it would be an advisory committee meeting l- .4 of,this advisory group.
5 MR. BERSON: Okay.
I 6 And bringing -in these other members would not 1 \
7 constitute a new, you know, subcommittee of the ' advisory 8 committee or something?
l l
9 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: No. It might get to a i.
10 subcommittee of the advisory committee; but it's the same I* 11 committee.
l 12 MR. SEGE: Well, I take it that we leave the date lO 13 open until your discussion with Gary, and we do it either-14 the third week in July or the fourth week in July, depending 15 on the outcome of- this conversation?
16 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: -Lest there be any ambiguity, :!
17 I think we've been talking about two different Federal
- 18 Register notices today:
19 There's a Federal Register notice that should go 20 out perhaps the middle of.next week, which will be an 21 announcement of our next meeting, and also include a discus-22 sion of the workshop.
-23 - There is also a different Federal Register notice
(~)1 _.
24 .that~will' incorporate.the questionnaire that George'is
[ gj nsoonm comp.nv 1 25 -working on, separately.
t
jrb43 43 ! !
l l
f'/}
s-1 Are there any other comments or questions on the l
2 workshop?
3 MR. SEGE: Is everyone reasonably satisfied l
' l 4
with the general approach to the workshop, about proceeding 5 in this manner with separate panel discussions, and the 6 general breakdown of the subject matter of discussions, j
, i 7 and the size and composition of the panels and so on?
8I Is the general structure satisfactory to the 1 I
l i
9; group? I 1
i 10l CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: The only question that comes '
11 to mind is why you want to put it in a motel, rather than 12 in some Commission office space?
(3 (l 13 MR. SEGE: Well, I talked to Gary about that before 14 he left and -- the motel idea comes from the inevitable 15; interferences that come about in our Commission offices:
16 secretaries bringing in messages, and people duck-out for 17 a one-minute phone call and stay half an hour; and there is 18 just one little thing that they have to attend to down the 19 corridor.
20 It's a little too disruptive for NRC members, 21 and it is also somewhat disruptive for most of the partici-l 22 pants who will be coming from Washington and who just too 23 easily can go back and forth between their offices and the
(-) 24 d / AeDorling ComDa"Y downtown NRC location.
25 It's really to provide the sort of small distance l
l jrb44 44
-A5 l ~
j isolation that is no't particularly inconvenient, but is just .
2 .enough to stave off all except important interruptions. j 3 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: I guess that seems 4 sensible to me.
5 I have no problem with the general set-up. !
6 _Next on the agenda is the suggestion that the group i
!-' 7 might like to have its monthly meeting for August at a location >
l 8 outside of Washington, the Washington metropolitan area.
1 .
9 At one or two points in our meetings there have l
l 10l been some suggestions about having such a meeting outside i
i 11' of the Washington area, and the suggestion was raised at one 12 point that we might wish to have i* in an area where there l (f 13 has been -- where the consequences of the immediato 14 effectiveness rule have been very important; and that would 15 be the Seabrook area.
16 George, do you have anything to say? Do you have L 17 any comments on this?
18 MR. SEGE: _W ell, yes, this is something that was 19 discussed within this committee once or twice before. It l 20 was brought up at the Commission meeting, the interim report; t
21 and the Commission'seemed to be inclined to accept the idea 22 -- although I wouldn' t ascribe to the Commission the attitude <
23 of pushing it, necessarily. But it was apparently left to
, the discretion of the committee. .
v 0 - ~ c - 24 -
25 The suggestion was made by a member of the public l
. - .. - .- - - - - . --- . - . ~ . - . _ . - _ - = .
l I
p jrb46 46 l'
i 1 at one of the meetings -- I believe it was Tony Roisman --
2 that it might be well to get viewpoints of people who don't i
3 live in Washington and don't want the expense of traveling 4 to Washington to one of our meetings, that one or more of i
l 5 our meetings be held in other parts of the country. i l l 6 I discussed this matter with Bob Ryan (phonetic l
- 7 spelling) to see if, from the vantage point of Director of 8, State Programs, he would feel as to how many people would !
)
9 come if we went to some area, preferably near some controversial l l
10 plant like Seabrook.
l 11 And he was not able to provide any estimate of i i
12 what sort of public participation we might get. He offered
, (~N I
\m) 13 to help us with drawing potentially-interested people's ;
i 14 attention to our meeting in the area so if there is an ,
i l
15 interest it might materialize in public participation. ;
16 Whether the public participation some place near 17 Seabrook would exceed the participation we have been getting
- I 18 in Washington, which has varied anywhere from zero to eight J 19 members of the public, I don't know. It could be a sizeable 20 crowd or it could be just no one. I l
21 Bob Ryan's opinion was it would be good to do it, !
22 to provide the public opportunity, whether that opportunity 23 is used or not; in other words , to lead the horse to water g3 24 even though he may not drink.
i w V a u w on ,c yng.nv 25 MR. KARMAN: You might hit an area, if you are l
l
v jrb47 47 I
1 talking about Seabrook -- rather than going up to a small 2 town in New Hampshire, it might conceivably be thought of 3 going to Boston, which is not that far away, and might also 4 bring out some people who would be interested in Pilgrim.
l 5 So you have a metropolitan area which would draw 6 on New England.
l* 7 MR. SEGE: Yes, I suppose that people who live in 8 the immediate vicinity of Seabrook would not have great 9 logistic difficulties in getting to Boston?
10 MR. KARMAN: No --
11 MR. SEGE: Easy bus-riding, easy driving?
12 MR. KARMAN: It's not much of a trip.
( 13 MR. BE RSON : Providing there's gas.
14 (Laughter.)
15 MR. SEGE: Yes.
16 MR. KARMAN: Make it the first of the month.
17 I think if we are going to go at that, that probably 18 would be the area that would be most productive, rather than 19 going into the immediate locality of Seabrook; Boston might 20 draw from the Seabrook people and others who might be 21 . interested.
22 MR. SEGE: Yes.
23 And also because it's an intellectual center, we l
l .
24 might draw the people of intellectual interest in the issue, j a. w un,c - o.nv l 25 rather than a direct, local interest; although, perhaps ,
c
jjrb48 48 l
I that would be more so l'f the meeting were during the academic 2 year, and not during the summer vacation.
3 MR. CHO: I wonder what the group would really 4 gain from meeting outside of Washington?
5 I think we are dealing with a rather esoteric 6 question. People who have been directly affected by the 7 rule and are directly involved, I think have been contacted 8, by the several ways we've discussed -- in questionnaires, t
9 possible participation in a workshop -- so I think they've ,
10 been given an adequate opportunity to express their views 11 and comments.
12 I don't think they will add very much. You may 13 get members of the public, but on this kind of question I 14 am not sure how much they will really add, other than getting 15 an opportunity to vent their feelings on, you know, the 16 problem of nuclear energy.
17 DR. NASH: It's good public relations to give 18 members of the public a chance to attend meetings. I am 19 sure John's question is just how much this would really 20 accomplish.
21 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: I must say that although I 22 am normally all for public participation -- doing everything 23 we can to get public interest -- I am rather dubious about 24 the benefits of actually having a meeting on the road.
f-s l % )a. w un,c m .nv l 25 We haven't had an awful lot of participation here
. - - ~ . - -- . . . . . _ - . - - . - . . - _ . _ . - - .- . . . - -
i L
l jrb49 49 1 in Washington. The participation we are likely to get in 2 Boston, I think, at best will be people who are generally l
l 3 concerned about nuclear power, which, after all, isn't the 4 charter of this group.
1
\
5 Our concerns are more narrow. I hesitate'to .
1 6 call them " esoteric"; they are certainly narrow, and they 7 deal with a very specific set of issues.
8- .And I seriously question whether any member of the
\
9 public at large, other than a person who has actually been 10 an intervenor or has some legal knowledge of proceedings 11 in other agencies, would really have anything to contribute )
12 to us that he or she has not already contributed to us
) 13 through public comment, participation in a workshop, or 1
14 responses.to the questionnaires we are going to send out. i 15 And, of course, there is a certain expense to the 16 government in sending us all up there and setting up for 17 that, not a tremendous expense in terms of the Federal I 18 budge', but an' expense.
19 My personal instinct would not be to go along with 20 this. I guess I would in this as in most other things, 21 defer to Chairman Milhollin's beliefs.
22 My suggestion to the group today is that each of 23 us to the extent we have any views, to express them. I'll gg .
24 be'. talking to Gary on the telephone, and sending a copy of KjAeoorting Comt tny 25 .the transcript,.so he'll read this; and we'll leave the i
jrb50 50 L
.l 1 decision up to him.
2 MR.'KARMAN: My feeling is that I really don't 3 think it'would be productive. What it would be at best 4 is public relations, an-attempt, that'this committee has <
5
~
offered to go to one of thesef localities.
L6 But-I agree I have no large questions about the 7 productivity of what would take place there. But it would 8 -
-be a public relations effort primarily, e
9 DR. NASH: Which you don't discount, it's still t
10 a value?
11 MR. KARMAN: Yes, that would be the only value, 12 and it may be that whoever makes such a decision could look 13 into that. I 14 MR. CHO: I would make one comment: I don't know 15 what can be more esoteric than construction during 16 adjudication to the public.
17 CHAlRPERSON OSTRACH: Okay, perhaps he'll agree 10 with you.
19 George and I will take it up with Gary over the 20 telephone and ask him for his advice. If Gary does wish to 21 schedul' e it, I think the August nleeting is the - right one 22 for it; after the August meeting we'll be working on real 23 drafting-writing sessions, and it will be late for the sort 24 of' input that we would hope to get from this meeting.
%gs Recorone Company
.25 '
So we'll just leave it that the August meeting
l jrb51 51
('N 1 will be the first Friday in August at a location to be
\-) I 2- determined. I i
3 The next topic is one we are going to have to deal l 4 with, and it is the final report of the group.
5 We really need to start thinking not necessarily 6 about the content of the final report -- we are hopefully 7 working on that in our sub-groups in these various plans 8l we have in mind -- but about the format of it.
9 And we need to have some sort of idea what the 10 final report is going to look like, so that we can begin to 11 shape our substantive work towards fitting into various 12 places in it. -
p)
(,_ 13 George has volunteered, along with me, to 14 work on preparation of an outline for the final report, 15 being something similar to the outline of the interim report 16 that George submitted back three or four meetings ago, 17 well before we began work on the interim report itself.
18 I know I found George's outline to be very helpful.
19 It gave us a structure to work with, so that we could decide 20 how actually to do the writing of the interim report.
21 And if there is -- well, does that sound like a 22 sensible way of approaching it? -- that George and I over 23 tne next montn will work on preparing an outline, a r~.g 24 nonsubstantive outline, of the final report which we'll w ja. m .no c m .nv 25 present to the group at our July meeting for discussion at
. .. -. . ..~. - -- - . . _, . . - . ~ _ . . . - . - - . , _ _ . .-
l L
l 1
jrb52 52 !
l l /~S 1 that point.
l .V 2 And when that's fixed then Chairman Milhollin will .
1
~
l 3 be chairing the meeting then, and we can begin allocating , j l
i l 4 writing responsibilities and further substantive work I 15 responsibilities to fit into that outline.
l l 6 MR. CHO: You might also be thinking about l l
l
- 7 when would be an appropriate time to start interviewing 8 different people who are included in our study outline, i
. I l 9l and the best way of going'about doing that? And maybe that i
10! might be a part of the outline that you come up with?
11 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Definitely.
12 I guess there's. general agreement that George and k 13 I be tasked with the responsibility for providing an outline l l
14 of the final report for our next meeting, and also a 15 discussion of who should be interviewed by whom and when.
16 I have no other scheduled topics.
17 I would like to throw the meeting open for j l
18 general discussion of' people's progress on work assignments ;
1 19 they are doing -- we've already got a number of reports; )
20 or on other subjects that the group-believes need discussion l 1
21 this morning?
22 (No response.)
23 I know there was one subject mentioned before L. 24 -the meeting began, and that was the subject of the impact l v! a.=t.ng cow.nv 25 of the Three Mile Island accident on this work.
k
^
r .
l jrb53 53 l
I
! (~T (No response.)
i_) I 2 Well, my view on that subject -- which I can see 3 has elicited crcmendous interest on the part of the group --
1 4 is that the impact, if any, of the accident on our work l 5 will be indirect. I 6 I am assuming, that is, that the Comgjssion itself
. 7 does not direct us to alter the course of our work in any l 8j way as a result of the accident. I think that 's very l
. s 1
9 unlikely. We gave the Commission a report af ter the acci- I 10 li dent; the Commission indicated approval of our interim '
l 11 report and the outline of our work.
- 12 So I have no reason to believe the mmission ,
1
()
/~ \
13 will tell us to change our course.
i l
l l
14 It is my understanding and I think the group's l 15 understanding that our mission is primarily baaed upon 16l environmental concerns. One of the perceived problems that 17 led to the creation of this group was the thought of
- 18 environmental damage being done to a site before final 19 decisions were actually reached.
20 The Three Mile Island accident does not really 21 raise environmental-construction-related problems; it 22 raises other issues. And so I don't think it is directly 1
23 applicable to our group's work.
24 The only impact that I see is the indirect one, 73 v /r4mrtng Company A
25 namely, to the extent it raises questions about the
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ - . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _.m .._._ ___ . _ _ .._.__._ --
[i
$rb54 54 l
l-1 accuracy of decision-making on nuclear subjects generally, I
2 it might create.an incremental impulse to take actions :
l 1
, '3 perceived as -- how shall I say it -- reducing the likelihood l
4 of error based on individual decisions.
(. 5 - It mighthave the effect of leaving decision-
[ 6 makers to say,_ we want two opinions before we let a' company e 7 go ahead; which might make direct decision-makers more ,
8 inclined to look with favor upon recommendations of this 9 group that effectiveness should be delayed until after.
10 review or allow further consideration.
! '11 I see that as an indirect consequence of Three 12 Mile Island, and not realls one that we can deal with,
) 13 and one that I don't believe really should affect our 14 decisions particularly, since we are dealing with other 15 questions; and we are trying'to address them on their merits.
16 And secondly, of course, Three Mile Island is l 17 going-to be extensively studied by other groups, which will En 18 obviously come up with their recommendations.
l 19 Are there any other subjects for discussion?
l 20 MR. SEGE: Let me make just one remark in connec-L 21 tion with Three Mile Island:
22 There is a possibility that the issue of where
, -23 nuclear plants are sited would be thrown into somewhat greater uncert'ainty by the look.at the Three Mile Island
- w C c - 24 -
! 25 accident; and that greater uncertainty -- at least temporarily i
L l
r
.,-, - - - 4. - - _ .,
. -. - . . - . - . . . _ _ . ~ _ . . . - . . -- .. . -. _- - - -. - -. . -.
I r
l
!:jrb55 55 ;
l i
/~% 1 there will be greater uncertainty -- until siting policy
(_)
2 becomes more firmly settled as a result of the Three Mile l 3 Island review. l I
l 4 But that could possibly bring pressure to go with 5 greater certainty whether the site is right before construc-6 tion is allowed to begin.
l
" l 7 And one thought I would suggest in this connection 1 l
8 is that this committee interview the Director of the Special I 4
9 Inquiry of Three Mile Island, the NRC Special Inquiry of 10 Three Mile Island, af ter he has been on-board long enough 11 to talk to us; and to get his or perhaps his associates' 12 thoughts on the subject, and take them into account.
13 Perhaps the temporary director could be interviewed, l
14' perhaps after he is replaced so he has more time to talk 15 to us.
16 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: I think that's an excellent 17 suggestion.
18 My understanding is the Commission hasn't yet 19 selected a permanent director for the study, and it might 20 possibly be some additional time until they do. And so I 21 would suggest that if we can ge t the director after he's I 22 been on, or if we can get Kevin after Kevin has assumed 23 whatever position he eventually assumes, that would be gg 24 helpful.
l% JReportmg Company 25 But in any event, that we interview someone l
- . - _-. -. .- .- - -.-.~.- - .- . . -
I f I l .jrb56: 56 l l
l 1- -
connected with* the investigation to see if they believe their -
1
\s-L 2 work has any consequences for us. ;
3 That's very helpful. !
1 l
4 Well, then, I think that takes us to the very l 'S last item of discussion, which is: when shall we meet 6 again? l lg 7 Our next regularly-scheduled meeting would be the 8' first Friday in the month of July; that's Friday, July the 9 6th, I believe.
1 10 MR. FRYE: July 6th.
Il CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: My impression is that we will 12 be in one way or another in contact with one another before
( ). 13 then for comments on the questionnaire for the Federal 14- Register that's been discussed; but that should be a useful 15 time to review progress on the workshop and to discuss the l
16 draft final report.
17 So, unless I hear any concern, I think we ought to
. 18 schedule the next meeting for Friday, July 6th.
19 Should it be downtown or should it be out here 20 in Bethesda again?
21 Several months ago we tentatively decided to 22 rotate between downtown and Bethesda; but as George points 23 out thers are only two of us who are based downtown --
24 MR. KARMAN: We like it here. ,
wO n.mna como.nv
%)
25 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Out here?
1 I l
jrb57 57 1 l
1 I
(Chorus of "Yes . ") i 2 MR. QUAY: Has there been any significant change l 3
in attendance between downtown and here? I l
4 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: It depends on the calculation' 5 of zero-minus-zero. l 6 (Laughter.)
i l
) 7 MR. SEGE:
, Well, there have been downtown l !
l 8 meetings, but nobody came; although there have been downtown l .
9;1 _
meetings where several people came. I don't know if it's 10 a question of interest petering out after two or three )
Il meetings.
I 12 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: Also, our next meeting will
() 13 be only shortly before the workshop, which I hope will be 14 an event we hope to get public participation int and so I 15 think that if there is any loss by making it slightly more 16 difficult for the public to get to our meeting on July 6th, 17 it would be more than counterbalanced by tr.e fact that 18
. we will be having the workshop in less than two weeks 1.a t er .
19 John, would there be any difficulty in getting l
20 this room?' i 21 MR. FRYE: No, I would think not. If there is, 22 I'll let you know; but I think we can assume we can get it.
23 CHAIRPERSON OSTRACH: At least tentatively, th en ,
24 9:30 a.m., July 6th, in this room.
E v~ m.po,ono comunv
\- 25 Well, good.
l i
i i
jrb58 58 f- 1 The meeting is over; thank you.
(_
2 (Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m,, the meeting was !
3 adjourned.)
4 i 5
6, I I
, 7 Si
- I I
9l l
10l l
11 .
12 13 (J'-
14 g i
1 15' 16 17
, 18 19 i 20 21 22
, 23 i
l l 24 wm. con.no como.nv
(_ / 25 l
l l