ML20147J183
| ML20147J183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/12/1978 |
| From: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147J156 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7812270480 | |
| Download: ML20147J183 (47) | |
Text
'
1 5
c [..
,s2 3
MUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN -
~
IM THE MATTER QF:
PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION OF, TWO REQUESTS TO TRANSFER & STORE SPENT FUEL AT REACTOR SITES OTHER THAN THE SITE WHERE THE FUEL WAS IRRADIATED AND TO HAVE SUCH STORAGE INDEMNIFIED 7
Ptoce -Washington, D. C; Date Tuesday,12 December 1978 Pages 1 - 46 i
l 7aleshone:
(202)347 3700 781227043O Acz.rzDERAI,RIPORTERS,MC.
om.w a_,_ _.
m North Casitol Street Washington.O.C. 2C001 NATICNWICE COVERACE. CAILY
1 t
(-
\\
DISCl. AIMER -
l
-This is. an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission held on 12 December 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
Th'is transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
. The transcript is intended solely for general infoma'tfonal purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the femal or infomal record of decision of the matters discussed.. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final de~taminations 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 argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
e O
S 9
p I
e. <
c a
a w-n, - ---
, - - ~ -
.-w-
ENNIS R l'78'4 2
- dd I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
PUBLIC MEETING 4
DISCUSSION OF TWO REQUESTS TO TRANSFER & STORE SPENT 5
FUEL AT REACTOR SITES OTHER THAN THE SITE WHERE THE FUEL 6
WAS IRRADIATED AND TO HAVE SUCH STORAGE INDEMNIFIED 7
8 Room 1130 9
1717 H Street, N.W.
- i Washington,.D. C.
10 Tuesday, 12 December 1978 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m.
12 BEFORE:
13 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 14 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commicsioner i
15 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 16 PETER A.
BRADFORD, Commissioner 17 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 18 PRESENT:
19 Messrs. Denton, Gossick, Kelley, Malsch, Pederson, 20 Saltzman, and Shapar 21 22 23 24
'ederal Reporters, Inc.
25
3 1
g
@R 1784 DDadd - all 1 P R_ O C_ E_ E,D_ I_ N_ G,S_
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The first item this morning is 3
a discussion of a pair of requests to transfer and store 4
spent fuel at reactor sites other than the reactor 5
site that the fuel was irradiated at and also to have such 6
storage, I guess transportation and storage indemnified 7
under the Price-Anderson Act.
8 Lee?
9 ME. GOSSICK:
Mr. Denton has some introductory 10 comments.
11 MR. DENTON:
The Commission has considered this 12 question one previous time about a year ago; I believe it 13 considered the transfer between Brunswick and Robinson and 14 concurred in the indemnification of that fuel which was 15 stored at a site other than where it was irradiated.
16 The Com.tission noted that this was not to be considered as 17 a precendential setting action.
18 Today we propose to discuss two requests we have 19 before us.
We are not actually proposing that we obtain 20 your approval of the action today, but rather that we notice 21 in the Federal Register an intent to proceed this way and see 22 what sorts of comments we get.
23 Jerry Saltzman will brief you on what the two 24 proposals are.
i Lee-F owes c.ponen, Inc.
25 MR. SALTZMAN:
Basically this paper focuses on l
I i
..~. - _ _.. -
l 4
I theLindemnity questions involved in indemnifying the-fuel 2
lthat would'be stored from one reactor at the site of 3'
another reactor.
i 4
Under'the' Price-Anderson Act, the licensed activities i
5 that are indemnified at a reactor include-the reactor operation 6
and the fuel awaiting storage in the reactor and the fuel that 7
is discharged from that: reactor.
8 Deradioactive material as a defined term in every 9
indemnity agreement involves the fuel and material to be 10 used in the reactor.
It's the view;of the Staff that material 11 that is being stored at the reactor that comes from another 12 reactor is not deradioactive material.
13 For indemnity to apply at the reactor, the indemnity 14 agreement itself would have to be changed.
The change itself 15 is a rather minor one.
It's a question of saying, "and the 16 fuel from reactor number no-and-so."
17 But the policy question is a more profound one 18 and it has to do with whether the Commission feels that the 19 indemnification of fuel stored at a reactor should be 20 different than the present situation of the indemnity -- lack 21 of indemnification for fuel stored at a place that is not 22 a reactor.
-23
.For example, the GE Midwest Fuel Delivery Plant 24 or the GE Facility which it is now called at Morris.
as%mm Rowan. im 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
They are not under Price-1
-.~,..n,.,,,,
,-w
..-+v n---.--
5 1
Anderson?
2 MR. SALTZMAN:
They are not under Price-Anderson.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
They buy their own 4
insurance?
5 MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
They buy their own insurance, 6
for the full amount, but they are not indemnified.
When they 7
wer'e a reprocessing plant, they had a construction permit to 8
be a reprocessing plant.
They were going toward getting an 9
operating license., We did enter into an indemnity agreement 10 with them.
But at the time the Part 50 license was terminated, 11 so was the indemnity agreement.
So now they are not indem-12 nified.
13 MR. SHAPAR:
Mandatory Price-Anderson is applicable 14 only to production facilities.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
However, it would be true of the 16 Morris facility upon appropriate application if the Commission 17 agreed?
18 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
You mean the Commission Ih could extend?
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We could require they have 21 financial protection and then extend the indemnification to 22 them so that fuel stored in Morris or some other -- away from 23 the reactor -- depot could be covered.
24 MR. SHAPAR:
The Staff is doing a study on that m Ceooners, Inc.
25 very question.
6 1
MR. SHAPAR:
That's right.
Looking not only at 2
fuel stored away from reactors but also all materials 3
licensees.
The Commission did exercise its discretionary 4
authority in 1976 in that it decided to indemnifyplutonium 5
processing fuel fabrication plants, a small group of licensees, 6
maybe a half a dozen of them, that make -- manufacture 7
plutonium fuel.
These are indemnified under the Commission's 8
9 discretionary authority.
The Commission then told the Staff 10 to go on and look at all materials licensees to see whether 11 enriched uranium, U233, perhaps even some by-product 12 licensees should also be indemnified and whether the 13 Commission's decision with respect to plutonium processing 14 and fuel fabrication plants was a correct one.
15 This study is under way.
The basic data collection There'have 16 is being done at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
17 been delays there because of disagreements as to the models 18 to be used and the computer programs and so forth.
They are 19 attempting to resolve that.
We hope to get the basic 20 data up from Oak Ridge First; and then NMSS will apply 21 their expertise to it and decide even if, say, a particular 22 isotope could cause an accident possibly that exceeds the 23 insurance that's obtainable, are these quantities that are 24 involved here actually licensed and are they possessed by e newsm, inn 25 licensees.
7 e
i 1
Thav have to examine the particular licenses 2
and they have to examine the mechanisms for getting the material l
3 out.
4 Finally, we would apply the Price-Anderson 5
questions which may go beyond, probably will go beyond, the 6
simple technical questions as this one does and say, "Well, 7
for:other reasons, for other policy reaons, perhaps even fo.r 8
reasons of symmetry, should you have Price-Anderson' 9
extensions to certain materials licensees.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Dick, you started a question 11 there, I thought.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think it got answered.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
John?
14 COMMISSION AEBARNE:
Is that the same study referred 15 to in Brunswick?
l6 MR. SALTZMAN:
I am afraid so, yes.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Brunswick 1977 said it would 18 he completed by the end of the year.
19 CHAIRMAN'HENDRIE:
Which year?
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
21 MR. SALTZMAN:
The problem is that the data 22 collection, expecially --
23 COMMISSION 2R KENNEDY:
Since it isn't going to be completed by the end of this year, I don't believe they 24 e w m oore,3,Inc.
25 could have meant last year.
What do they mean?
l l
i g
1 MR. SALT 2 MAN:
I don't think they realized how com-l l.
2 plicated the question was.
The problem arises from decontami-3}
nation expecially for lesser contaminated areas.
How far do I
4 you have to go?
How much money do you have.to spend to 5
decontaminate?
Can you.just hose it down, turn over the 6
dirt?
7 They have to remove the dirt.
Apparently the i
8 problem that arises in Oak Ridge'is that you have different i
9 computer codes, one based on taking everything away and i
10 the other based on doing whatever is necessary to bring it i
I II down.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the basic l
13 question they are trying to answer?
Id MR. SALTZMAN:
How much is it going to cost you 15 if you have minor decontamination caused by materials from, 16 say, materials licensees decontaminating an area?
How l
i 17 much would it cost you to clean this up?
Are these costs l
18 so large as to probably get you into a Price-Anderson area or i
19 are they small enough.to be included within the insurance 20 that can be purchased?
21 (Commissioner Bradford entered the meeting at 10:00 22 a.m.)
j 23 MR. SALTZMAN:
If they are relatively minor costs, whicl{
l r
apparently the study thinks they are for any materials licensees',
2d
- Feners monomes, anc.,
t 25 the Commission probably would not -- would want to consider l
i i
..,,,._..a
9 1
seriously whether they should extend Price-Anderson.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are asking whether or 3
not indemnification is necessary?
4 MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
5 MR. DENTON:
Do you have an idea when that's 6
expected?
7 MR. SALTZMAN:
Do we have a date on when it's 8
coming up from Oak Ridge?
9 VOICE:
The latest date we have is 10 days from 10 yesterday for their report to resolve -- the two reports 11 to be resolved.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
By the end of this year?
13 MR. SALTZMAN:
No.
That gets it up from Oak 14 Ridge.
I think it's going to be controversial.
Apparently 15 thtre are two different studies being worked on in Oak l
16 Ridge.
What's going on right now is that in each study, they 17 are writing an addendum that links one study to the l
\\'
18 other one.
i 19 The addenda will be the same for both studies.
That !
l 20 is to say, read our study, be aware that study comes up with I
21 different numbers.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
These are technical studies 23 on deconcamination?
I 24 MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
Technical studies on source W-Federal Recorters, Inc.
25 terms.
I
10 i
s' 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Contamination and decontamination.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:. Levels of decontamination 3
required.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Take each of the materials we r
5 license, look at the'different forms in which it's licensed 6
and. you say what. could happen to spread this stuff.around; and 7
if '.it did, what would we have' to do to clean it up?
'B 8
Of course, there's inevitable argument over how i
9
-far it could be spread and even more argument over what levels 10 of cleaning up would be appropriate.
11 The aim is to try to get a set of prices as I i
12 understand it, estimated cost for each of these' contingencies 13 and then to judge whether this is way above, way below, 14 available commercial insurance amounts.
15 I guess the aim is if you have a number of
^
I 16 situations where it's -- where it looks as though the l
17 available commercial insurance simply would not cover, then 1
18 the question arises is that a candidate for Price-Anderson.
(
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is the difference --
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I see where the study gets 21 complicated and-where people disagree.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: B:1 ward Teller said real %t s 23 never disagree on-technical questions.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Edward usually means that Ws Feemd Rowwn, lm:.
25 includes him.
I' i
11 L
'1' CHAIRHAN HENDRIE:
Did he tell-you how many real t
2 experts there were?
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Just one.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
On this issue of disagreement j
5
.at Oak Ridge, are the two disagreements between the cost or 6
is it -- are the two disagreements between the extent of 7
contamination and,'therefore, the result of cost?
8 MR. SALTZMAN:
I believe it is the ccst of 9
decontamination; but -- Pete?
10 VOICE:
That's part of.it.
There are some 11 differences in substance.
Obviously there are different 12 numbers.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Are there differences in'the 14 contamination also?
15 VOICE:
There are differences in contamination j.
16 and decontamination.
l l
l 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Since there's a certain i
18 amount of uncertainty, or to get the language of another I-4 19 discussion.we have-here from time to time, the uncertainties 20 appear to be -- to have been underestimated, since - there's:
21 a substantial uncertainty in some ways, you are just 22 as well'off to let individual groups go ahead and crack through 23 with their version and see how they compare on.an overal1~
24 basis.
)
=> nems no men,iac
]
25 MR. SALTZMAN:
I think thats what=is planned.
I i
t I
12 1
They are not trying to reach an agreement any more.
2 They are_trying to explain the differences so that a person' 3
can pick up any one study and understand why the other 4
study is so different.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Part of the problem is you 6
just explained there's a substantial uncertainty about
~
7 shat are the possible effects of the action that you are 8
proposing to take.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Not today.
10 MR. SALTZMAN:
Not today.
II CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
These don't apply to things like 12 spent fuel.
~
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought that was part of Id the --
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't think -- is there any i
great doubt?
l 16 17 COMMISSIONER AilEARNE:
I thought that was what --
l 18 MR. DENTON:
What we were proposing --
1 I9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This includes spent fuel 20 away from reactor sites.
21 MR. SALTZMAN:
This is spent fuel at reactor 22 sites.
We think this question can be settled for 23 different reasons that are not technically based.
4 MR. DENTON:
On more nerrow ground, our concern i
W-Feded Reporters, Inc.
l is tihatilf you do ' blend the fuels a_t a reactor, and there I
l 25
~
~
13 I
1 is an accident, the public would be surprised to find fuel 2
from that reactor was indemnified.
3 MR. SEAPAR:
Beyond that, you may not be able l
4 to determine which fuel caused the accident.
l 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Would that make any diff-
{
6 erence as a practical matter?
You have to assume some of the 7
indemnified fuel --
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If you couldn't determine 9
which it was, that would be the only reasonable assumption.
10 MR. SALTZMAN:
I can see it being litigated.
Il CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
An even more reasonable 12 situation might be if the Commission kept all of the spent 13 fuel indemnified.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That's possible one wouldn't l
15 have to litigate that.
l l
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That goes to a different 17 question.
The indemnification takes effect only when the i
18 level of loss reaches a point which is presumed to be beyond 19 the level which could be covered by regularly purchased 20 insurance; isn't that true?
21 MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
If by that you mean a 22 government indemnity.
Generally we are talking the whole l
23 Price-Anderson scheme with its mandatory insurance and the l
24 government indemnity.
l ce Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And the waiver?
i
14 I
MR. SALTZMAN:
That is another situation.
The 2
problem with the waiver is that when the legislation was 3
written in 1966 that introduced the waivers, they applied 4
only to production utilization facilities.
5 I don't know if that was intentional or not.
You 6
are going to need further amendment of the Price-Anderson 7
Act:itself to extend it to any licensee where the Commission 8
exercises discretion or authority.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So there is no waiver here?
10 It's just indemnification?
Il MR. SALTZMAN:
That's right.
It doesn't give 12 you exactly the same protection.
13 MR. SHAPAR:
Except that the consensus is that Id we have an accident involving radioactive materials, the 15 courts would apply -- the strong probability is the courts j
i 16 would apply a doctrine of strict liability.
l 17 Of course, the waivers make that sure.
The i
18 probability is that even without the waivers, strict liability l 19 would be imposed by the courts.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is better not to 21 experience it, though.
22 MR. SHAPAR:
It's the informed judgment by a i
23 great nmmber of legal commentators.
[
l 24 MR. SALTZMAN:
eFewW Rumnes, Inc
. We are trying to chip away at 25 the areas of doubt.
The more we can do that, for example, l
15 b
1 fuel stored at a reactor that's not really that reactor's I
2 fuel, under indemnity, anyway, you have taken away one area 3
of doubt if there were an accident at that reactor.
4 COMMISSIONER AECARNE:
This study we are talking l
5 about, when is your best estimate of when it will be 6
completed, completed in the sense you previously described; 7
that is, having come up here and then gone through the staff 8
process?
~}
9 MR. SALTZMAN:.
I would say that we would need two 10 to three months beyond what NMSS needs.
'i 11 Does NMSS know when they could be treated?
12 VOICE:
I am sorry?
13 MR. SALTZMAN:
'After it comes up from Oak i
14 Ridge, how much time would you need to add on to it?
15 VOICE:
Within a few months, one to two months.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's three to five.
When i
t 17 do you expect -- when do you expect to get it from Oak 1
18 Ridge?
}
}
19 MR. SALTZMAN:
They say 10 days.
II' :
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is that 10 days, the final
)
21 product from Oak Ridge?
l 22 VOICE:
That's what they said.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Maybe mid-year?
j.(
i 24 MR. SALTZMAN:
There's another one which we f
t 6 4ews rowan. im.
25 are exploring.
That 'is get the studies up and have them
!i i
16 l'
published, get them out on the street, and let people start 2
considering the studies separately before they even get to the 3
Price-Anderson question.
4 I think there is enough controversial about the 5
studies themselves and the technical results that they want 6
before you introduce the Price-Anderson questions which go l
7 beyond the technical questions.
8 What we m).ght want to do is just send up through 9
information papers the' studies.and.let the Cotamission 10 consider them and let them be published and the public consider 11 them before we then address a staff paper to'the Price-12 Anderson question.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But the proposition before the house, 14 this morning rests on a rather different ground, the rather IS different' ground Harold has mentioned.
16 If you take fuel from reactor A because its pool 17 is getting crowded and put it in the pool of reactor B, where l
18 it's joined by fuel from reactor B, there does seem to be some i H
I' 19 reason or logic to having the -- to the extent possible --
20 the same protection provisions apply to fuel A and fuel 21 B in the same pool?
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What about the fuel in 23 transit?
24 MR. SALTZMAN:
That would be indemnified anyway.
es-Federet Reporters, Inc.
25 The' fuel is covered under the -- let's take the Duke case --
1 i
'17
'I under the Oconee indemnity agreement, as long as it is in 2
transportation to the place where the transportation will 3
end.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's originating reactor coverage 3
extends out to the place where, until you put it in the other 6
g,11gy,, pagy7 7
MR. SALTZMAN:
Until-the transportation itself 8
ends.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why do you stop there?
Why 10 do you only cover it for one leg of'the journey?
MR. SALTZMAN:
Because when the whole Price-Anderson 12 thing was originally started, the assumption was there were going _
13 to be reprocessing plants.
They were production facilities.
Id They would be under mandatory indemnity.
They would pick 15 it up at their facility, indemnify it there, and the i
transportation from the reprocessing plant to where it I7 ultimately went would then be covered.
IO The question of where it ultimately went was i
19 never addressed.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That cutoff is in the statute 21 or is that in our regulatic,n?
22 MR. SHAPAR:
Our regulations.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the cutoff?
2#
MR. SALTZMAN:
The end of transportation.
as-Federet Reporters, Inc, 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It just allowed one leg?
1
18 I
MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
One ultimate leg.
2 If you take it to the freight terminal and it sits 3
there and goes to another means of transportation, that's 4
all covered.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Why isn't an interim storage-6 covered?
7 MR. SALTZMAN:
Well, it's really not in the course 8
of transportation.
It has come to an end.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, it hasn't.
10 MR. SALTZMAN:
You are going to leave it there II forever?
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What is forever?
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What does the regulation Id say?
15 MR. SALTZMAN: "In the course of transportation 1
16 means in the course of transportation within the United i
i I7 States including handling or temporary storage incidental thereto. ',
l 18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Incidental to the transportation;'
I9 MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
20 "Of the, radioactive material to the location or 21 from the location," and then it has "provided that," and 22 says:
23 "The transportation of the radioactive material 24 from the location shall be deemed to end when the radioactive I
i tce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 material is removed from the transporting conveyance for any
~!
o l
l 19 1
purpose other than the continuation of transportation 2
or temporary stort.ge incidental thereto. "
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Would not be covered.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So in order to make that a
stretch, you would have to provide that the second -- the 6
residence in the second pool is temporary storage, what?
l 7
Incidental transportation thereto?
l l
8 That is -- I don't know -- would guess if one wanted l
l 9
to do that, one ought to speak more explicitly to it than just 10 try to use that phrase.
11 Actually, let's see, what does the statute -- tell 12 me what the statute says about this?
13 MR. SHAPAR:
Just says, " licensed activity," and 14 leaves it up to the Commission to write regulations.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In principle the Commission s
16 then under the statute could provide that spent fuel coming 17 from reactor A would continue to carry with.'it a Price-l 18 Anderson indemnification from reactor.A until it finally l
l 19 either went down a hole in the ground.or into a reprocessing 20 plant that had its own Price-Anderson?
21 MR. SHAPAR:
But the logic of indemnifying the 22 licensed activity is that une licensed activity itself is so 23 potentially hazardous that it mandates Price-Anderson l
l coverage; and here you are having something that really, as 24 me-Fwas cnonm, Inc.
(
' 25
.a matter of logic, is not used in connection with the licensed
-i l
l' 1
n 20 I
operation at all.
It could just as well have been Dresden.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:- If ycu kure going to cover 3
'the transportation, why wouldn't you cover storage for some
~
4 years?
5 MR. SALTZMAN:
Look-at the ';sracticality of it.
6 Let's say again the Oconee-McGuire situation.
You had 7
Oconee and McGuire in the McGuire pool.
Again if you had aus
_r 8
accident, it would either be the McGuire indemnity agreement 9
that would cover or the Oconee agreement that would cover or i
10 both, depending upon which fuel was involved if you could ever i
Il determine it.
12 Whereas the situation we are trying to describe 13 would have McGuire pick it up and cover it alone once it.got Id to McGuire.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You think it would be simply 16 a cleaner --
l 17 MR. SHAPAR:
As long as you are going to indemnify l
18 anyway, you have discretionary authority.
19 CUMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It's hard to see how 20 you could have some fuel bundles under one regime and other 21 fuel bundles under another regime.
e 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You now have some that are 23 under no regime at all.
The Brunswick matter we resolved by.
24 saying that it ought to be indemnified, but that's not true i
oFww.i nuonm, inc.
25 at Morris.
l i
21 I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What's at Morris?
2 MR. SHAPAR:
It may be.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
They are all under the 4
same regime.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There is no coverage.at 6
Morris.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's the same regime.
8 No coverage.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am just saying is there 10 spent fuel anyplace?.
j MR. SALTZMAN:
At Morris, yes.
I2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's not indemnified?
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Not indemnified.
Id MR. SHAPAR:
That's part of the study Jerry alluded 15 to earlier.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Wouldn't it be true, though, l
l 17 that during.the transportation, is that an extension that no l
18 longer has the waiver or is the waiver --
I9 MR. SALTZMAN:
No.
That includes the waiver.
20 So would it if it is indemnified.at McGuire under the --
21 MR. SHAPAR:
The way it applies.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is the transportation 23 extension part of the statute?
2#
MR. SHAPAR:
Transportation is the NRC's definition
+
z.hooral Koporters, Inc.
25 of licensed activity as part of its own regulations.
It's not
22 I
spelled out in the statute.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But how would we manage then 3
to extend the waiver through our definition?
Again we c.re 4
unable to extend the waivers the next step?
5 MR. SALTZMAN:
The waivers go with production and 6
utilization facilities.
The reactor is a utilization facility.
7 Its transportation is part of the licensed activity.
8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's not -- as I under-
~
9 stand it, that's not in the statute -- that is somehow defined --
10 a truck is defined to be part of production and utilization?
11 MR. SALTZMAN:
We defined the transportation of de-12 radiated material as being part of licensed activity, yes.
13 MR. SHAPAR:
This was done early on and brought to 14 the attention of Congress.
15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Hasn't been litigated?
16 MR. SHAPAR:
Has not been litigated.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In both of these cases where 18 you would be storing the fuel at a reactor and you would be i
19 claiming that it is part of the indemnification of that reactor,'
20 why isn't that part of that facility and, therefore, eligible 21 for the waiver?
22 MR. SALTZMAN:
Again within the indemnity agreement 23 the definition of deradioactive material -- let me give it to I
24 you quickly -- deradioactive material means source special a Feenl Reconm, lrw.
l 25 nuclear and by-product material which, one, is used or to be l _
I
~
l
23 1
used in or is irradiated or to be irradiated by the nuclear 2
reactor or reactors subject to the license or licenses designated 3
in the attachment hereto or, two, which is produced as a result 4
of the operation of said reactor.
5 Now the attachment of the McGuire indemnity agreement 6
lists the McGuire licenses and no others.
It does not list 7
the.Oconee license.
So that what we would do, if the 8
Commission approved this change, is we would say deradiated 9
material means all of this plus irradiated fuel discharged from 10 reactor > numbers so-and-so which are the Oconee reactors; but 11 right now it domm't seem from this definition as if it 12 covers the material discharged from Oconee.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But that's a Commission regulation?
13 14 MR. SALTZMAN:
But it is in the form of the indemnity 15 agreement.
They all have the same form.
The regulations say l
16 if we change --
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You have to_ amend it?
[
i 18 MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
We have to amend it.
To amend i
19 we have to publish a notice under 140.9 which is the second 1
20 notice we would publish.
It alerts the public that McGuire will' l
21 have an indemnity agreement that is different from any other.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Peter was asking is there anything 23 fundamental in the statute which would prevent us setting things, I
i 24 up so that Oconee and McGuire fuel in the McGuire pool had
+
= Fews twomm. inc t
25 precisely the same provisions attached to them under Price-
-l' 1
i
,--.,_w.-.-
,,.. ~.... ~,
.-,-.m..
,,,,,m-
,,~,.
24 1
1 Anderson; right?
2 COMMISSIONER ca.ADFORD:
Well, I was actually asking 3
it a little differently, but that would be one implication that j 4
you might have gotten from the answer.
That is, ifit'ssimplyf l
5 a matter of continuing to extend the definition of production 4
6 and utilization on out into the chain, it's hard logically to 7
draw -- to see how the spent fuel is being any more produced 8
or utilized in the truck than it would be in the spent fuel pool 9
at McGuire, or the next truck, and so on.
l 10 The problem is that you may get cut off at the first 11 point.
Somebody may challenge the question of whether production 12 or utilization is going on once it leaves the facility.
13 MR. SALTZMAN:
You also meet another argument that 14 comes from the other side.
That is, let's say you have approved 15 the storage of the fuel in a reactor that did not have an operating 16 license which is what Duke is actually asking for.
17 Let's say they never got their operating license i
18 for some reason but still had their fuel stored there.
You 19 would have an indemnity for this situation but not for GE-Morris:.
i as the i
20 You Nant to do that.
We would say -- that 21 reason the Staff is saying wait until you have an operating i
22 license for Duke, for McGuire before you do it; because other-23 wise, we say wait and see what our answer is or our recommen-i 24 dation with respect to plants like GE-Morris, because there you '
- Federsi Coporten, Inc.
25 have a -- McGuire right now, if they were licensed to store the i
i
25 l
I fuel from Oconee would be acting much more like GE-Morris 2
than they are acting like another reactor.
3
, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why has the' staff not recommend the extension to GE-Morris?
MR. SALTZMAN:
It's awaiting this study.
I think 6
the indications from the study are that at least'with respect 7
to'a plant like GE-Morris, you don't need indemnity.
t 8
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
McGuire isn't giving up very 9
much.
They probably regard that storage as incidental to 10 transportation.
MR. SALTZMAN:
Probably, yes.
I2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If I can understand it 13 correctly, you said that the fuel -- if we were to go ahead I-I#
on the route that you are suggesting, would not have the i
15 waiver carried with it?
6 MR. SALTZMAN:
No.
It would have the waiver.
- Under, I7 the McGuire indemnity agreement which has the waiver in it.
fl1 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Both the -- both McGuire and II Oconee?
MR. SALTZMAN:
If we were to recommend and the I
20 21 Commission were to decide on the basis of the study that it 22 wished to extend Price-Anderson coverage to GE-Morris, it would 23 not have the waiver until the le.gislation.
MR. SHAPAR:
Or until Morris became a production weaneres norwes, Inc.
25 l'
facility again.
I
26 1
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
At which point the mere 2
presence of the fuel there would indemnify it?
3 MR. SHAPAR:
Would be a production facility and 4
mandatory Price-Anderson.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have just discovered that I 6
have become confused.
7 (Laughter.)
~
8-COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Just when everybody else has 9
gotten clear.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I feel bad about that.
Il COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I am still with you.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we require protection and 13 extend Price-Anderson to, for instance, Oconee fuel in the 14 McGuire pool and we do this by extending the McGuire poverage, 15 then the waiver provisions in the Price-Anderson Act would j
16 certainly extend to the McGuire fuel in the McGuire pool, you 17 just said also extend to the Duke fuel in the McGuire pool?
18 MR. SALTZMAN:
That's right.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is that correct?
l I
20 MR. SALTZMAN:
Correct.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All lawyers who are willing 22 to give an opinion are now nodding. That's not what I under-23 stood.
Okay.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So that's --
l Sce.FederC3 Coporters, Inc, 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
I feel good.
I am glad L,
27 1
you caught it the other way, too.
It seemed to me we 2
were looking at a little snag in here which wouldn't make 3
the coverage precisely the same, and we were poking at ways 4
of why couldn't that be done.
5 I hope they are not getting ready to change it 6
again.
7 MR. SALTZMAN:
Let me say I am not a lawyer so I 8
am allowed to have my doubts.
9 (Laughter) 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
The recommendation of 11 the Staff is that the Commission authorize Harold to approve 12 these two requests for storage, to approve --
13 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
I want to ask a question on 14 that line.
Isn't it correct that the storage at those two i
15 Jites is the subject of two Licensing Board actions?
16 MR. KELLEY:
I mentioned to Earty I think this wording 17 is a little broad.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Isn't it correct that both i
19 the storage at McGuire and the storage in --
20 MR. SALTZMAN:
The Commonwealth situation.
l 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
-- the Commonwealth, are both 22 Licensing Board actions to which petitions to intervene have 23 been filed and there will be hearings on whether or not 24 they are going to be allowed?
.4=we aummm, ine.
l 25 MR. SALTZMAN:
Duke at least is.
I am not sure
28 I
whether the' Commonwealth-one is.
2 MR. MALSCH:. Yes.
3
. COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am puzzled by what kind of 4
. action we are being asked to take.
The paper says we are to
]
5 authorize the' storage, subject to no significant: comments being 6
received in opposition which sort of seemed to me to be saying 7
tha.t we were going to go ahead as a Commission and approve an 8
action that the Licensing Boards were having hearings ~on.
9 MR. DENTON:
No.
It wasn't intended to supersede 10 those proceedings.
Let me ask Marty to. speak to it.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought it was a version 12 of the Gilinsky speed-up process.
13 MR. DENTON:
Marty,.do you want to explain?
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:.Maybe it's simply to provide i
15 guidance to the Board.
l 16 MR. MALSCH:
I think they are both in hearing 17 or about to be in hearing.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
On what grounds?
Is this issue 19 being litigated?
l 20 MR..MALSCH:
No.
4 21 COMMISSIONER AIHERNE:
This issue, the Price-22 Anderson is being litigated.
23 MR. MALSCH:
No.
-[
24 COMMISSIONER AIHERNE:
How about the question m-Peoers Csoorwr.Inc.
25
.here in the paper which says explicitly to authorize'the-i 4
.. ~,,,..
29 I
director or to approve the request for fuel storage?
2 MR. DENTON:
I think that language is too broad.
3 MR. MALSCH:
What it means is a request to send 4
Price-Anderson to storage.
It's broader than it should 5
be.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If what is being asked then 7
is --
~
8 MR. SALTZMAN:
I have a simple answer to the 9
question,- if I may.
l 10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
As I understand the situation, 11 it is -- what's really being requested is if the Licensing 12 Boards choose to grant the authority to allow the 13 spent fuel storage, then the Commission is saying it shAll --
14. Price-Anderson coverage should be extended to ccVer it; is l
15 that right?
16 MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We are not making any 18 judgment whatever as to spent fuel storage?
19 MR. SALTZMAN:
No.
I think all that happened here 20 was that that particular line or very close to it was carried 21 over from the last year's -- under Robinson where there was no 22 contention of this issue.
23 We were also at that time asking the Commission 24 to give us authority or give the director of NRR authority l
we.w neoonm, inc.
25 to_ approve all of these indemnity requests in the future,
,)
l t
30 f
I The Commission thought not to.
2 MR. SHAPAR:
Approved-standard forms don't work all 3
the time.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The way Commissioner 5
Kennedy asked the question and the way you answered it was that 6
even the action of extending is dependent upon the 7
Licensing Board approving the storage --
8 MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
We would not extend it if it 9
was not approved.
There would be nothing to extend.
If the 10 movement of fuel and storage in the new reactor was not 11 approved, there is no need for an indemnity change.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was just wondering.
That 13 way it is characterized as we are not making a judgment 14 as to any implications about the appropriateness of the 15 storage; but if we were to extend it automatically, then that 16 would be a judgment.
17 MR. DENTON:
I think --
18 MR. SALTZMAN:
We have a long lead time.
i
\\
19 MR. DENTON:
Procedurally it doesn't extend until i
20 the time we are required to issue a piece of paper.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But --
22 MR. DENTON:
I understand.
23 MR. SHAPAR:
This is a valid point.
I suggest we 24 make this clear in the notice.
1 j
ace-Fw ww noormn.i=.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That we are not making any l
l
31 1
judgment?
2 MR. SHAPAR:
Correct.
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's a matter before the Licen-4 sinc Board on which we await their conclusion.
l 5
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me ask Jim if, A., with I
6 such a provision and a prospective Commission order, i.e.
7 the Commissioners offer no judgment, there is no guidance or any
~
8 thing else with regard to the merits of the issue, sheuld 9
this fuel be allowed to be stored, is the question of the 10 Price-Anderson extension, if the transfer of fuel is approved, 11 is it ripe?
l 12 Is it appropriate that we take action?
13 MR. KELLEY:
I think you can look at the issue that's l
14 up here this morning without getting involved in the i
15 other from an ex parte standpoint.
We haven't talked at all 16 about the merits of that license amendment.,
17 Jerry, don't you --
18 MR. SALTZMAN:
We better be careful.
19 MR. KELLEY:
-- in advance if that's going to 20 happen.
We think that's the reason you are here this 21 morning.
You need to be. forehanded.
22 MR. SHAPAR:
We don't propose to discuss the merits l 23 of the proposed licensing issue.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What do you lose if we approve wf. awes cenesim, ine.
25 items two and three in the recommendation and leave one along?
32 MR. SALTZMAN:
I think really what one should have 2
said --
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Dut that's in two.
4 MR. SALTZMAN:
But I think another thing it should 5
have said is that if-adverse comments are received and even 6
if a Board makes a decision that the license could be issued 7
or an amendment could be issued so that fuel could be 8
stored at, say, McGuire, that the Commission should -- would 9
still be informed of this because -- well, would the 10 Commission want the impression of this extension to go even 11 if -- if the Board were to decide that you could move the 12 fuel, but there were comments that were received that said, 13 "Oh, this Price-Anderson question is much more serious than 14 i
you think," and the Commission, on the basis of these comments,'
15 decided. net to extend Price-Anderson to McGuire in the
!6 situation, would they like a little breathing spell in there, 17 that was really what was behind the whole thought here.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seems to me with regard to 19 the action, the tr~ansfer of fuel, it's in the Commission's I
adjudicatory structure at the Licensing Board level and will 21 work its way up that chain Es all of these things do; and further-22 more, that if there appears scme good reason to do so at 23 any time, the Commission can dip down from the top and seize.
24
..ew w nuor n,'im.
the issue.,
25
~
I don't see any need to sort of stir that pot up l
,. ~.
33
'I with complications by running an order that says -- well, 2
that talks to point one here at all.
I think the point 3
in the order ought to be the Commission offers no --
4 specifically makes no decision on the merits of the transfer 5
of fuel which is in the adjudicatory chain, but notes 6
that it would' contemplate if the transfer were approved exten-7 sion of Price-Anderson coverage of the transfered fuel and is
~
8 asking for public comment on that possible action, I guess 9
is the way to word it.
10 That seems reasonable?
II MR. KELLEY:
Yes, because if you do have an amend-l l
12 ment granted by the Board in a few months, then unless you are 1
13 willing to stay everything while the Commin ion looks at this l
l I
14 question, you add more time on to the other end.
15 I don't think that you need to do that.
You are in 16 a position now to decide -- I think -- subject to public comment 17 that it looks like a good idea to extend protection if this 18 is.done.
I9 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
On the other hand, if we had 20 the study and had it in three, four, or five months, we could 21 reach the question in a broader sense and decide the question 22 on the merits of the question and not on the merits of the 23 individual cases.
24 That seems to me it could make an emminently 6mfsderal Caporters, Inc, j
25
, sound sort of decision which is what we had in mind when we l--
I I
34 i
l decided the Brunswick matter.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
However, once those things are 3
in hand, the Staff will make some recommendations, I assume.
4 It's quite possible that those will be sufficiently profound 5
policy steps that it may take a year of discussion, rule-I 6
making, et cetera to put in place a more uniform, generic
'7 policy.
8 I am all for getting to it, but I would just comment 9
that if these issues are here before the house in specific 10 cases, I have a notion the general preposition won't move fast 11 enough to be much comfort here.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I will be surprised if we are 13 not seized witil that more general question as soon as we start 14 reading the comments on this order.
15 MR. SHAPAR:
I think a lot depends upon how convincing 16 you think the two reasons given for affirmative action in this 17 case are.
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What are those again?
l9 MR. SHAPAR:
Number one that the public will be 20 unable to perceive, should there be an accident, the difference :
21 in treatment of the two fuels stored at the same facility in the 22 same pool; number two, in the event of an accident, it should I
23 be impossible to determine which fuel caused the accident.
2d CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or contributed to certain
% Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 consequences?
- -j i
1
35 i
l i
si.
I MR. SHAPAR:
Right.
2 MR. SALTZMAN:
These arguments would probably be l
the same even with the broad study that comes out.
The difference the broad study will make is that it will allow you 5
to compara the treatment then of fuel stored at a reactor to 0
the treatment of fuel stored at another independent spent 7
fuel storage facility.
I
~
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
As well as all the materials?
9 MR. SALTZMAN:
As well as everything else.
But 10 I mean in just this context.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Your argument is that the --
i 12 the argument for extending it at this time is first that you 13 expect at the time the Licensing Board acts, you wait to Id have this in place?
15 MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You feel this is the necessary 17 lead time?
Yes.
!]
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The second, the reason for 20 extending it is to solve a problem that you perceive might I
2I occur, namely a confusion on the part of the public?
l l
22 MR. SALTZMAN:
From the point of view of a victim.
l i
23 They should not have to be concerned as to whether they will l -
get Price-Anderson or not, as to whether the Commission sc..Feo.ra ::.pomn, inc.
25 in drawing up its indemnity agreements or its regulations
36 I
calls some fuel deradiated material and others not.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When you are saying that they 3l would not have to be concerned, you mean that they would I
4 avoid legal problems or is this a perception problem?
l 5
MR. SALTZMAN:
Legal problems, too.
They should 6
be able to go up to the claims office that the insurance company 7
will set up, send in their claims, say, "Here is an accident 8
that happened at that reactor and where is my money?"
9 No one should have the opportunity to say, "Well, 10 wait a minute, we are not sure if that's Oconee fuel and not II indemnified or McGuire fuel and indemnified."
l I
12 It should be clear cut.
13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What difference would it 14 make?
15 MR. SALT" MAN:
It would make a difference if you got 16 above the $140 million.
The insurance will cover in any case.
I7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Actually we have extablished that 18 each plant that comes on line, the operators thereof, the I9 licensee assumes a -- what is it -- $5 million per unit obli-20 gation?
21 MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In the event there is an accident 23 which goes over the commercial pools, then you start j
24 collecting $5 million per operating unit and only after
.Fe w.inamem,ine l
25 you have extracted all of that do you begin to draw from the i
t
. - -~
1 37
.1 I
U. S. Treasury?
i 2
MR. SALTZMAN:
That's correct.
3 MR. SHAPAR After the first two tiers have been 4
exhausted, the underlying insurance and the $5 million P
5 funds.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The government goes up t.e 560-~
f 7
MR. SHAPAR:
Where liability is cut off.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In due time the expectation is i
9 that $5 million increment for operating plant will in fact go
~
i 10 well above $560 million and the government won't be liable Il at'least under the specific terms of Price-Anderson at 12 all.
13 However -- let me get on.
14 Don't you have to extend Price-Anderson l
s 15 specifically in this case, for instance, to the Oconee or 16 Dresden fuel in ordar to have that $5 million operating plant 17 levy apply above the liability pool; or do you?
18 That is, is there a benefit-here in terms of non-l 1
19 government protection whf.ch is only available if you extend the' I
t I
20 Price-Anderson coverage?
21 MR' SALTZMAN:
I think the answer to that'is yes, 22 because the only licensees who are required to enter into that 23
$5 million pool'are the ones that are under the indemnity 24 agreement.
weawa neoorters, Inc.
25 You would have here a McGuire indemnity agreement, i
i
I 38 I
but the only licenses listed under the McGuire indemnity 2
agreement would be the McGuire licenses and not the fuel 3
that came from the Oconee license.
I i
1 4
That would be nowhere once it was in McGuire.
j 5
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Same company, though?
6 MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
The $140 million insurance 7
would be the same.
That policy is a broad site policy and i
8 covers anything that happens there.
As far as a premium, i _
i 9
probably not, wouldn'.t you agree?
10 MR. SHAPAR:
I am not sure.
l l
Il CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I seem to recall somewhere out l
l 12 of the dim past that in order to exercise this levy per operatin'g 13 i unit, you in fact had to be within the Price-Anderson 4
14 framework and duly signed up and, you know, the particular i
15 contamination elen.ents covered by the thing.
16 MR. SALTZMAN:
In fact, the insurance companies --
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
From the standpoint of potential 18 accident victims, I guess it doesn't make all that much 19 difference whether the government is providing money above the i
20
$140 million pool limit or whether it's coming in $5 million I
21 for operating unit increments from the utilities; but it l
22 conceivably could make a difference to the government.
j l
23 MR. SHAPAR:
If the government.. pays out, the_
i 24 aovernment has the r.icht.to recove[, unler the new system.
%Foo.rei neoerters, inc.
25 MR. SALTZMAN:
When they are paying for defaults in i
39 l
l 1
the system, yes.
l 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But if you don't extend Price-i 3
Anderson, the government isn't --
l 4
MR. SALTZMAN:
Right.
t 5
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:- The government isn't liable.
e i
i 6
MR. SHAPAR:
Right.
f 7
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: 'Let me ask you:
How i
8-many requests of this are you going to get over the next
-l i
9 year?
l I
10 MR. SALTZMAN:
The only other one that I have 11 ever heard of -- there are two I have heard of.
There was l
I 12 another one from Duke.that involved a switch between Oconee t
13 and Crystal River because of some fuel.that had a problem I
l 14 at Crystal River that they sent t,o Duke.
15 Duke was going to send fuel back to Crystal River.
16 They decided not to do that.
That was going to be' included 17 in this paper, as a matter of fact.
18 The only other thing I heard is that Duke has said 19 if this is approved that at some time in the future when i
20 they get a license for Catawba, they would like to have 21 the same kind of arrangement between Oconee, McGuire, and 22 Catawba.
That is some time off in the future.
I would 23 sincerely hope this broad study would be done by then.
I 24 I stand by the statement we make here.
We think
. F.ana n
, fine.
25 this takes care of everything we can foresee for now until the
-l 1
t 1
l i
40 i
f 4
0.
- s 1
broad' study is'done, t
~
2 MR. DENTON:
But.the long-term answer depends 3
upon spent fuel storage policy.
I suspect in a few years
-4 if nothing was moving on that, we might see an increase in.
5 the number of' requests in:this area.
l-6 MR. KELLEY:'
I.was thinking we don't have any-7 dealing with these issues on a case-by-case basis..
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we are going to have' a great 9
number, it would be nice to have a' fairly uniform policy.
10 What's this about Crystal River?
11 MR. DENTON:
That request I recall disappeared.
12 MR. SALTZMAN:
That washed out.
Crystal River 13 sent --
-l 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:. If it's not going to come.up --
15 MR. SALTZMAN:
It's not going to come up..
Nor will 16 the McGuire-Catawba one'come up for some time.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Jerry, study or no, let's 18 assume that we have a study that says that really the cost of 19 decontaminating and cleaning up under the worst set of 20 circumstances -- okay?
-- and a reactor as contrasted with off '
21 site areas is less than $140 million; if Price-Anderson were in 22 place, it wouldn't make any difference; right?
23 MR. SALTZMAN:
That's right.
Right.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Let's say that we got the
.Fwww nuoren,im, i
25 studyJand that it said that it was going to be more than-l 1
41
. u,
-1
$500 million;'and then that would be an argument for putting i
i
-2 Price-Anderson in place, wouldn't?
3
' MR. SALTZMAN:
Where?
-4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Either one; okay?
5 MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
t 6
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: -Well, if that's true, then'I 7
don't see why we wait for the study.
Why can't we make the f
8 decision?
It wouldn't make any difference.
If it's going 9
to be less than the $140 million, it's going to be cov red 10 by insurance anyway; they are going to have to.
11 MR. SALTZMAN:
They don't have to buy insurance.
f i
12 MR. SHAPAR:
If they decide to insure.
That's 13 one advantage by the way of Price-An,derson. -You require 14 them to take that insurance.
i
'15 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Otherwise, they-are still at 4
16 risk?
t 17 MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
18 MR. SHAPAR:
It's'a business risk which they can 19 accept or not.
l l
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: The second possibility 21 is it's going to be more than $140 million, less than $400 22 million, $300 million.
They are going to have to pay for it 23 anyway out of the pool if it's Price-Anderson.
It isn't going 24 to.make any difference which way it comes out.
It's going Lee hlieral Regletters, ifE 25
' to s be' covered.. some. way.
The best situation, therefore, is
t 42
( ).
I exactly as Howard said:
A situation in which insurance 2
becomes a compulsory package?
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But not alllare required 4
to insure to the maximum that the pool provides.
5 MR. SALTZMAN:
Only those licensees who are 6
operating power-reactors at greater than 100 megawatts 7
electric are required to buy all the insurance there is.
8 Only those licensees.
9 MR. SHAPAR:
For example, we sete the amount at 10
$20 million for the chemical processing plant at NFS.
II
, COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But the same rules can apply.
I2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We have to decide what 13 that amount is.
Right?
I4 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
But, of course, that argumenE.
i 15 can be pushed too hard.
That's an argument for indemnifying 16 everything right now.
I7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Of course, there's another aspect, depending upon how the study comes out.
It might lead [
18 t
II the Licensing Board, for example, to seriously think about i
20 whether they ought to approve it.
That would make the indem-21 nification question irrelevant.
22 MR. SALTZMAN:
That's possible.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think your answer to Mr.
24 3radford's question was that there was no real reason for i
n e w w.e G oere m,Inc.
'25 need -
there was no necessity to do step one.
i 1
43 1
MR. SALTZMAN:
I believe that's right.
Don't 2
you?
3 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
So in reality you could be i
4 publishing the Federal Register notice which is -- at least 5
my interpretation would then be asking for public comment on the 6
issue of extending the indemnification to these two sites?
7 MR. SALTZMAN:
That's right.
Making it clear that 8
the Commission takes no licensing position.
l 9
MR. SHAPAR:
We take no position whatever, i
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask -- are you 11 finished?
12 COMMISSIONER:AHEARNE:
Yes.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why are we not ready now to 14 deal with the question of whether all spent fuel at a reactor I
15 should be treated on an equivalent basis?
16 What is it we need to know that we don't know?
17 MR. SALTZMAN:
The only thing you need to know is 18 if it were decided in the broad study, that fuel stored not at i
19 a reactor but an independent spent fuel storage facility 20 does not need to be indemnified, does that bear on your 21 decision at all about reactors.
I would think not.
I would 22 think you would want to indemnify it at reactors regardless of 23 what you decided to do with respect to independent spent fuel 24 storage facilities.
a-FederJ Reocrters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me we ought to I
l
44 cy, s I
_ address that question.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would think so,-too.
j 3l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You mean broaden the request l
4 for public comment to cover the total question?
l 5
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
l 6
MR. SALTZMAN:
At reactors?
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
At reactors.
8 MR. SHAPAR.
Of course, I think maybe the Staff 9
treated that gingerly because of the specific point that the i
10 Commission previously made in connection with the earlier II situation where they said it's not a precedent and there was l
l i
12 some discussion back and forth:
"Well, you can say it's not a 13 precedent, but it's really going to be a precedent."
i Id I think what Commissi6ner Gilinsky is saying is 15 to take another look, re-examine that question, say now we have 16 done it twice as a precedent, after considering a slight I7 variant factual situation, why not do it across-the board for 18 all similar situations in the future?
I think that's an extremely good question.
l
]
I 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would have no difficulty to --
21 let's see.
If the particular cases before the house are the 22 Duke and Commonwealth situations, it might be useful to note 23 them specifically; but one could also ask for comment on the utility of going ahead and making it a uniform policy of the
,p 25 Commission that where fuel from more than one unit was stored i
i i
45 l
- >, n I
in a storage pool of that unit, that the coverage was to be I
2 under that units -- Price-Anderson was to be uniform and 3
extend to the full types of fuels.
4 How would you feel about such a notice?
i I
5 MR. DENTON:
Agreed.
i i
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Which would have the other 7
element that would note it?
Namely, no -- express no view on 8
the merits of the fuel transfer at the points in question, but ;
9 deal with the Price -- the extension of Price-Anderson, A.,
i i
in these cases if the decision ultimately was to allow the stor!
10 11 age; and, B.,
as a general proposition.
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You can't very well call it 13 a notice of intent and then say it expresses no views.
I 14 MR. SHAPAR:
You can't really.
You can say we 15 have this under consideration.
You can disclaim it.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We can probably disclaim it 17 by the title.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Whates mr the appropriate framing i
19 is to make that thing.
l 20 Jim --
I 21 MR. KELLEY:
Fine.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is that clear enough?
23 MR. KELLEY:
Fine.
I i
l 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Howard?
4=-fewa neperan. im, j
25 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
l r
~
I
46 l
i 1
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am sure the Commissioners will 2
want to see a d::af t order.
Let me'see if in fact we produce 3
a vote L.
favor of that course of action?
Could I
~
I 4
ask for those in favor of such a decision?
s 5
[Show of hands.]
l l'
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Unanimous.
Let us go forward.
7 The Commissioners will want to see the paper.
This will a
constitute some basic program policy.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Can I ask one other l
10 information question?
There is a draft generic environmental 11 impact statement on spent fuel that had been put out in' March 12 of this year for comment.
Comments were received.
What's 13 the schedule for getting out that final?
l 14 MR. SALTZMAN:
I ask.the NMSS people.
j 15 VOICE:
I believe it's scheduled for early '79.
l t
1 16 The first qparter.
17 COMMISSIONEE AHEARNE:
I would at least guess in some 18 sense that's another piece that will have to be folded into i
19 that other study.
l 1
20 MR. SALTZMAN:
Yes.
I think as a matter of fact' 21 some of the axiomatic analyses in that generic environmental 22 impact statement are utilized by the NMSS in their 23 comments on what Oak Ridge is doing.
.I 24
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m.,
the meeting was l,
hFewW Ageren, lm i
Ebs 25 adjourned.]
l
.