ML19347E989
| ML19347E989 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/07/1981 |
| From: | Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347E990 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8105150022 | |
| Download: ML19347E989 (68) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _.
NCCIE.AR REGUI.ATOR? COMMISSICN C
III the man of:
COMMISSION MEETING DISCUSSION OF REVISED LICENSING PROCEDURES 1 - 65 DATE:
May 7, 1981 PAGES:
(
AT:
Washington, D. C.
1
.k LDK%X M3G f",,
t~
400 V1 3 ' 4 a Ave., 5.*E. ~42 * '
g-
_, C. C. 20024 l
i l
.aLaph==a : (200) 554-2245
(
i l
SloSIS60 AO '
J
MN, 'y 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
+++
4 DISCUSSION OF REVISED LICENSING PROCEDURES e
5
+++
6 Nuclear Regulatory Commission g
Room 1130, 1717 H St., N.W.
6, 7
Washington, D. C.
M]
8 Thursday, May 7, 1981 d
d 9
The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.
m.,
10 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
z 5
11 BEFORE:
g 12 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman of the Commission S
13 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner g
=
l 14 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 2
15 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner U
j 16 ALSO PRESENT:
w g
17 SAMUEL J. CHILK 18 LEONARD BICKWIT, JR.
5" 19 WILLIAM J. DIRCKS X
20 HOWARD SHAPAR 21 ALAN S.
ROSENTHAL t
22 TONY P. COTTER l
l 23 MARTIN MALSCH 24 l WILLIAM J. OLMSTEAD i
25 j HAROLD DENTON l
+++
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
,s
.o
- ~-
D:5:~~1 m i
M ts an "~"*
'm'_ c:1:1
'pc ci n.:se& 5 ci te;C ' sd
- St:aras N" ' a=- Zagula=:2:7 C.
<<ic= he.L. c= May 7, 1981
{
~
'11 ci:a Cc=Lsaian's c"dcas a: 1717 E Sc=se=, 3. W., Wast:1=g:==,
D. C.
h wed r m open c: puh
a::-s--- a=d obserrs d =.
h
- ~'"*"-'7c has== beec rrrimsrud, c:::ac:ad, c= edi::ad, a=i L: zET ~ '~ *~~=
^ =.
h c=z=sc=1;= is i=-
J A solaI7 f:= g-.-,t
<e-
, ::1e-, ?
pu= poses.
As f__,". dad.by 10 CZ1 9.103, 1: is _== pa== of de fm=a.I. c:- 4 3 I rac=ri ed s d.t =, ed e, =2::a 3 sd,c=33 g,
~=p:===d--- ad epd d -_ 1: +s*
m.
- c de ; = cacassa-117 r
- wm e- ~,' dse=
-,:Lces o r he *d<.
Xc p* = = sd z c: cr'- -
p2pe:* =z7 be. #di M i A Cha (*
- 31== i= 4 f p;;caedd 7 as A--
d
- ssuL: ci a: add =assed ca.-.T s~~~~~=
c: a.
c== 1L:ad.
h = d
,. az= ape as cha. %
' <=d=. =zy ande r- _
q D
e e
I I
l l
l l
l
,o 2
1 PEqqElglgql 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we could come to order, the 3
Commission meets this afternoon to continue its discussion of 4
revised licensing procedures, a
5 Yesterday morning we were in full flight on a 5l 6
discussion of ways to try to move the front end of the hearing R
7 process along in a reasonable way, and there were discussions a
j 8
about requiring people to serve papers on one another in a d
d 9
hearing by air mail or messenger or whatever, and also discussion i
h 10 of possibly limiting, except where good cause was shown to 3j 11 expand the number, the number of interrogatories per party.
W y
12 Now, we asked the counsel and his ad hoc group on 5
4 13 licensing to retire to their chambers and come back with a l
14 proposition, and I am pleased to see that they have been able to 2
15 do so.
j 16 Since I just laid eyes on it, and I have only turned w
g 17 the front page, why, it will be a help to me if the counsel will E
18 lead us through it, please.
5 19 MR. BICKWIT:
Fine.
What you have here is simply an R
20 outline of the major issues, as far as we can determine them, 21 that are involved in putting together any proposed rule change.
l i
22 Our recommendations are those of the OELD, the appeal i.
1 23 board, and our office, except where othsrwise noted.
t i
24 l The boards, as I understand it, still have not reached l
25 ;
recommendations on these points, but, Tony, if you want to i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
(,
3 l-1 support or dissent from any of these, fine.
( ~
'2 What I mean by recommendation i s that if the 3
Commission wants to go in this direction, this is what these s
4 offices believe is the most acceptable way of doing that.
=
5 MR. COTTER:
I just saw it about five minutes before bl 6
Commission Ahearne did, and I do have most of the panel members R
7 in a seminar in Gaithersburg right now, and I plan on polling nl 8
them tomorrow morning.
d c
9 MR. BICKWIT:
I see.
The first issue that occurred to i
h 10 us is on whom are the interrogatories we are talking about being 3l 11 served.
- 'e talk about limited interrogatories.
As to which
~.
3 y
12 recipients are we limiting these interrogatories, and the major i
13 options are to shield the staff only, or to shield all parties.
l 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am confused.
I thought we 2
15 were talking about interrogatories by ---
5 16 MR. BICKWIT:
We do talk about that later in this j
w g
17 outline, but the issue I want to focus on now is whatever we set U
M 18 as a limit for interrogatories and whoev?r we place that limit E
19 on as a means of limiting interrogatories by a given party, who k
i 20 is shielded by the rule?
That is the issue I am trying to 21 isolate.
22.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is it a shield?
Aren't you 23 raising a separate cuestion?
Are we talking about a shield, or 24 larewetalkingaboutaconstraint?
25 MR. BICKWIT:
We are talking about some kind of l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
,o 1
constraint, I think.
(
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
But you can have the 3
constraint with or without the shield.
4 MR. BICKWIT:
I was using shield and constraint e
5 interchangeably.
b 6
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But they are different, because R
7 the constraint is the person proposing the interrogatories.
That Xj.
8 is a constraint.
~
d d
9 MR. BICKWIT:
I am saying that whatever constraint we i
h 10 impose on that person, it is a separate issue to determine who El 11 is going to be shielded by that constraint, and that is the issue a
y 12 I would like to focus the Commission on in either one.
E' g
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If I could just beg your
=
l 14 indulgence, though, let me ask this.
I am still confused, M
2 15 because there is one question which goes back to, do we shield D
j 16 the staff from discovery, and that would be a shield.
But I w
g 17 don't understand, are you saying -- let's j ust suppose that we
{
18 were to have 50 interrogatories.
I thought what we had been E
19 discussing is, a party would have 50 interrogatories to use.
R 20 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now are you saying that in 22 addition you would be considering whether that 50 limit would i
23 only apply to against the staff, or are you saying that in l
24 addition to the limit of 50 you would also have the question 25 ;
whether any should be applied against the staff?
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
5
.+
1 MR. BICKWIT:
I am not sure I understand your options, 2
so let me try to rephrase it.
I am saying that whatever 3
constraint you impose by virtue of this rule, is it to -- can I 4
use the word -- benefit the staff by saving staff resources, or e
5 is it to benefit all the parties in the proceeding?
Are we 5j 6
talking about something that will free up staff resources and R
7 therefore can be used as an argument by staff to keep down the X
j 8
number of interrogatories served on staff?
Or are we going to dd 9-make the decision that all parties will benefit from this?
hg 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So, you would say, for example, Ml 11 under your option A, if we went with A, and we sent to a 50 m
j 12 limit, then the 50 limit would only be 50 by the party on the i
13 staff, and they could have any number on' anybody else?
l 14 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
Now, as you see, our 2
15 recommendation was, whatever rule we come up with, our j
16 recommendation was to apply the limit so that all parties had w
g 17 something in the way of a shield.
And the arguments are pretty 5
18 s traight-fo rward.
E 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't think you need to belabor k
20 them.
It seems to me evidently reasonable.
21 MR. BICKWIT:
I think by no belaboring them the 22 Chairman was suggesting that I not make them.
23 CHAIRM.N HENDRIE:
Precisely.
Let well enough alone.
i 1
l 24 I don't know, do we really need -- just elemental fairness, it 25 l would seem to me ---
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6 1
COMMISSIOl1ER BRADFORD:
Fine.
Assuming one chooses
.~
-l 2
either A or B, yes; that is right.
3 MR. BICKWIT:
All right, shall we move on to the t'
4 second.
=
5 The issue is whether whatever rule we propose or adopt 5l 6
in this area should apply to all proceedings, or should it apply R
3 7
to a segmented, just a group of proceedings?
And &s we 8
suggested, the most logical grouping short of applying chem to d
d 9
all proceedings would be one that excluded enforcement and z
h 10 antitru:t proceedings, on the grounds that the motivation for 5
g 11 this proposal has 'oeen to ease the burden on staff resources, 3
d 12 particularly NRR non-antitrust resources.
It is not I&E and NRR Z
f 13 antitrust resources that are of concern in this exercise, ~although l
14 there may be some concern about them, and therefore it could be 2
15 argued that the way to go is to apply this restriction only with g
16 respect to the proceedings listed in (b).
W
(
17 We recommend app lying it to all proceedings on the 18 basis that it promotes evenhandedness and conserves all of the E
19 resources of the agency.
And if the Commission regards this as R
20 a good idea, then probably it would want to apply it to all its 21 adj udications.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARME:
Well, fortunately, I have never 23 had to go into an antitrust case in any depth, but I don't know 24 i whether they are sufficiently dissimilar that the arguments on 25 ; making this a good point for other proceedings would fail.
And l
I i
' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
7
,+
1 perhaps those who are more versed in the antitrust hearings 2
could speak to that.
3 MR. COTTER:
Most of them are settled as a result of C
4 extensive prehearing and discovery.
When they go to trial, they a
5 can last as long as a year or more.
I would say they are 5
6 dissimilar.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I suppose that they are Xl 8
not for these purposes unlike a hotly contested licensing dd 9
proceeding.
I mean, they are complex, the facts are economic 2
h 10 rather than technical, but the same kind of impulse to inquiry E
I 11 there.
My guess is the number of interrogatories against the y
12 staff would tend to be less and against the parties more in 13 relation to each other.
But as long as the board has the l
14 discretion to take into account the nature of the proceeding, I 2
15 guess I don't see any reason for treating them differently.
Y j
16 I am still not sure that the overall approach is a w
d 17 good idea, but if I accepted the approach, I think I would apply E
18 it to antitrust proceedings as well.
19 MR. ROSENTHAL:
I think it is perfectly clear that in M
20 antitrust proceedings the parties would be pounding at the door 21 seeking a considerable relaxation of the 50 restriction.
But 22 this would have the advantage of requiring them really to focus 23 on the need for a particular interrogatory or line of j
interrogatories, because they are going to have to persuade the 24 25 '
licensing board that there is a j ustification for it.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~
8 1
So, with the recognition that in a typical antitrust
(
2 proceeding 50 would be a sparse number indeed, I do support the 3
recommendation that antitrust proceedings be included.
i 4
MR. SHAPAR:
Our licensing proceedings have been
=
5 cescribed in a number.of places as among the most complex 5l 6
proceedings -- I am referring to the typical health and safety R
7 and environmental.
I don't view our antitrust proceedings, Kl 8
although they are long and they are difficult, as exceeding in dd 9
complexity a hotly contested health and safety and environmental 10 case.
And beyond that, as Commissioner Bradford indicated, 3l 11 should there be sp.ecial circumstances, the approach would be if g
12 you can show good cause for extending the number.
But I don't E
13 think the distinction between the antitrust and the health and l
14 safety would warrant a different approach.
U 2
15 MR. BICKWIT:
I assume the concensus is for our 5
g 16 recommendation?
w g
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, at the end one has to E
18 have a vote on the whole concept.
E" 19 MR. BICKWIT:
No, no.
Clearly, as I said, these are H
20 recommendations based on the assumptions.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Lacking obj ection along the table,
22 why, plunge forward with the exposition is my suggestion.
MR. BICKWIT:
All right.
In item 3, assuming you have 23 24 a defined limit of, say, 50 interrogatories, the question is 50 25 interrogatories by a party on 'what?
And the alternatives we pose i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
9 l
1 are 50 per party per other party in the case, 50 per contention, 2
50 per subj ect.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If you were going to do it by
(
4 contention, presumably you would have a different number.
=
5 MR. BICKWIT:
That is true.
Probably you would have Hl 6
a much smaller number.
2 7
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There is a fourth option that I Al 8
guess you excluded because you didn't think it made sense, which dd 9
would be, X number of intertogatories by a party.
g 10 MR. BICKWIT:
That it right, by a perty per case, yes.
j-11 The recommendation was by a party per party.
Our is y
12 feeling was that if you do it per contention, you will 13 proliferate, it will be an inducement to proliferate con m tions.
t l
14 If you do it per party, you maxirize the flexibility of the 2
15 party on whom the limitation is placed.
As you point out, it is U
g 16 going to be a much smaller number if you apply it per contention vi(
17 or per subject.
If you expand the number and say it is per E
5 18 l party, then the party on whom the limitation is placed can c
19 allocate among contentions as that party chooses.
M 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Who decides how the subj ect 21 areas fall out?
Presumably the board.
22 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
A problem we see is that 23 if it is done by subject area, you have difficult judgment calls 24 that you are adding tc this procedure in the case of every 25 proceeding.
It would be hard to determine exactly what the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
10 I
subject area ought to be, whereas if you go with (a) or (b), it C
2 is going to be pretty obvious how many parties there are and how 3
many contentions there are.
The subject area, (c), has an 4
advantage over (b) in that it won't lead to the proliferation
=
5 of contentions within subj ect areas.
If you went with (b), there bl 6
would be a tendency on the part of parties to expand the number 7
of-contentions, look at a given subject area and decide how many X
g 8
contentions can I get into that subject area.
That problem is dd 9
cured by (c), but I think (c) creates the other problem of 10 raising the difficulty of judgment calls as to what is a subject iE I
11 area.
g 12 On balance, we felt that the flexibility associated a 13 with (.a) =ade the most sense.
E l
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
This is the first of several of
!ii 2
15 the items through here that raises a question that seems to me to Y
j 16 be one of the basic difficulties with this approach.
'entially,
- d g
17 it is going to require, at least under (c) and under (a), if you
!ii 18 get motions to go beyond 50, I should think it is going to 5
19 require the boards to step in at that point and actually review 2
20 all the proposed interrogatories.
21 MR. BICK'4IT:
If more than 50, assuming the number is
(,
22 50 ---
23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is true for (a).
If one i
24 chose (c), of course, they would have to do it -- they would
(.
25 probab ly have to ---
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
11 1
MR. BICKWIT:
If your point is that the boards would 2
have to review the specific interrogatories to decide whether the 3
number, whatever it is, that is specified is exceeded, that is
(-
4 certainly the case.
That is contemplated.
=
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I guess one of the questions 5
6 here, and.we can't really get at it perhaps until you have had a y
chance to talk with the board members, is just how much board 8
-time is likely to get tied up in administering any kind of dd 9
interrogatory limitation.
i h
10 MR. BICKWIT:
It is difficult to estimate.
I guess El 11 our conclusion is, whatever that time is, it is going to be c
12 greater in the :ase.of (c) than in the case of (a) and (b).
3
(
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And if a party wants to ask the 13 5
l 14 51st question, is that going to require the board to review all C
2 15 51 or only the 51st?
MR. BICKWIT:
Well, that is reachel in another issue g
16 w
d 17 down the road.'
l 18 "
MR. COTTER:
I think it is pretty clear that there is 19 some sentiment -- I can't speak precisely, but there is some R
20 sentiment in the boards in favor of limitations on discovery.
21 But I think it is also equally clear that these kinds of numbers 22 are going to mean that in virtually every case the board is
(
l going to have to go through another round of motions practice 23 l because there will be requests for more interrogatories than the
(
24 25 l largest number presented here.
Wouldn't that be your instinct, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
12 1
MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
I am also thinking that it.makes a 2
good deal of difference when that motion practice occurs.
If it occurs in the early part of the proceeding when there is dead 3
(~
4 time, tnat is one thing.
If it occurs after the SSER is e
5 published, that is another thing.
That hurts.
5l 6
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That is sort of obviously when R
{
7 it is going to occur.
Nl 8
MR. SHAPAR:
But at that time they will be directed at dn 9
the staff.
i h
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
1(hat would a party do, then?
El 11 Reserve some questions, like holding five minutes for rebuttal?
y 12 MR. BICKWIT:
I assume that is what would be done.
E 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, it depends on the choice g
s l
14 that the next one he is coming to -- one of the. options they 2
15 looked at was the number of interrogatories per NRC document.
E j
16 MR. BICKWIT:
Shall we move on?
6 17 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Please do.
18 MR. BICKWIT:
Item 4 is similar in nature to item 3,
=
19 i that you are really ar' ring, do you want to maximize the flexibi-M 20 lity afforded to the party on whom the limits are placed, or do 21 you want to try to tailor the thing to given portions of the 22 proceeding or portions of the subject matter.
And our feeling t
23 l again was to maximize flexibility and have whatever limit is 24 l selected cover the entire proceeding.
I 25 !
In particular, with respect to ' tem (b) here, we see i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
13 1
that as potentially counterproductive in the sense that it would a
2 encourage a lack of fragmentation of the SERs, which is just the 3
other direction from the one in which we have been proposing to 4
move, which is to fragment it as much as possible, get as much of
=
5-it out as soon as possible.
This could encourage the staff to bl 6
delay the earlier fragments until the end, since it would know 7
that there was a limit on each supplement, that applied to each
- )
8 s upplement.
The staff might be inclined to reduce the numbers of dd 9
supplements around.
z h
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
One hopes that the business of El 11 having fragmented the boards is a temporary, contemporary thing.
m MR. BICKWIT:
I am not so sure that I would confine my y
12
=
E 13 advice on that to simply the near term.
I think there is some 5
l 14 advantage, as a general proposition down the road, to getting 2
15 portions of the SER done as early as possible anc not waiting for 5
g 16 the entire analysis before coming forward with portions of it.
w(
17 This will enable proceedings to move faster.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Perhaps fragment is a bad word.
E 19 MR. BICKWIT:
Fragmentation is a bad word because it R
20 has a negative connotation.
I think apart from that it does 21 represent the situation.
q 22 Item 5 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I want to ask Tony, you were 24 saying that the number, or you referred to the largest number as 25 75 whether you think that number is unreasonable or whether it is 3
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
14 1
just lower than the number of interrogatories that have been p.
usual in cases and therefore you expect the requests to increase 2
3 the number?
4 MR. COTTER:
I am giving you a real judgment call, but e
5 my judgment is that with respect to both operating license and bl 6
construction permit cases that it is unreasonable, given the f7 diversity of subject matter in those two cases.
Xl 8
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But I thought that Howard or 9
someone said that the typical number was like 100, and in i
h 10 complicated cases that it was like 200.
Ej 11 MR. SHAPAR:
That is right.
3 d
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And if a typical number is like E
(
100, and people aren't particularly constrained to develop really 13 S
E 14 good questions or ration them, then why would 75 or even 50 be a
2 15 unreasonicle?
Is the number like 100?
16 MR. OLMSTEAD:
It is like 100 for each proceeding.
- Now, 3d g
17 in some of these cases you can have the proceeding divided, so N
18 that you, in a sense, have your hearing separated in time 19 sufficiently that you would get double that.
In other words, if A
20 you had two weeks to the hearing and then for some reason there 21 was a delay of a year and then you had another two weeks, then 22 you would have a greater number of interrogatories because of the 23 need for an additional round of discovery.
But under these t
24 proposals, presumably the board would allow for that and change 25 ! the limit in that proceeding.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
15 1
MR. COTTER:
When you say proceeding and talk about
(~
2 separate proceedings and using the number 100, I have no feel 3
for this.
Are you considering the general practice now that the
(
4 environmental aspect is taken care of first and that the safety 5
aspect is taken care of second, and is your 100, then, the total l
6 for both of those proceedings?
7 MR. OLMSTEAD:
No.
If your environmental and safety Xl 8
would come together, as they have in some cases, then you tend to dd 9
get about the same amount of preparation, just because the 10 parties are working on the case at the same time.
However, if
!Ej 11 those cases are separated by four to six months or twelve months, is g
12 then you are going to have some doubling up, because the party 5
13 is going to come back in and replow the ground the second time.
g m
l l
14 COM'4ISSIONER GILINSKY :
Aren't they usually separate?
2 15 MR. OLMSTEAD:
They are usually separated, but in a 16 normal -- before TMI they weren' t separated by very much.
It is g
as
(
g 17 not uncommon to have your environmental hearings and then a month 5
18 later have your safety hearings.
E 19 MR. COTTER:
I am not sure what you mean by replowing b
I 20 the ground.
21 MR. OLMSTEAD:
If the witnesses' change and the
(
22 documents change, then people come in and ask the same discovery 23 questions again.
24 MR. COTTER:
I was thinking of the subject matter.
The 25 environment and safety ar,: two different subj ect matters.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
16 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But in considering the cases
.('
2 that are ahead of us, the 10 or 20 or however many, what is the
(,
situation going to.be?
Are you going to have separate 3
4 environmental and safety hearings, and what would the total number
=
5 of interrogatories be, in your view?
5l 6
MR. OLMSTEAD:
In most of the near term cases, you are R
R 7
essentially talking about safety hearings.
So, that figure would 3
l 8
hold true.
Now, as you get out into the next fiscal year where dn 9
the environmental hearings aren't done, then you might want to i
h 10 consider them as two separate proceedings.
El 11
. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So, is your recommendation to y
12 assign 50 to each one?
5 y
13 MR. OLMSTEAD:
No.
m l
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You shifted from factual to 2
15 policy.
j 16 MR. SHAPAR:
I want to point out that in the event w
6 17 interrogatories can't be asked, the questions can be asked on U
{
18 cross-examination during the hearing, and there you have a s
19 policy or pragmatic tradeoff.
The idea of discovery is to R
20 expedite the hearing and so that nobody is surprised and you 21 know what to prepare for.
That doesn't mean the question isn't
(,
going to get asked.
If they want to ask a question and they 22 23 don't Get a chance to ask it on discovery, they will ask it on 24 cross, and you will pay a price, but I don't think it is a one on 25 one price, or even close to it.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
17 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
In the courts that have 2
limited discovery and interrogatories, what was the number trat 3
they routinely used?
p 4
MR. OLMSTEAD:
The maximum was 50, and most of them
=
5 were in the 20 to 30 range.
5l 6
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Do you have any idea what R
7 percentage -- I don't know quite the way to ask the question Mj 8
because the cases are so different -- but how often did they tend d
d 9
to have to go over the' allowed limit?
z h
10 MR. OLMSTEAD:
That is kind of hard to figure out 3j 11 because it is a relatively new trend.
The judicial conference m
y 12 tells us that it is not very frequent because the j udges are 13 being rather harsh about the specificity of the interrogatories.
i l
14 If they review the interrogatories asked and find that they were 2
15 not articulate, they are not inclined to grant additional j
16 interrogatories, plus they tend to view the parties as being able w
(
17 to use other means to obtain the information.
5 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Other means meaning depositions?
=
5 19 MR. OLMSTEAD:
In the federal court cases.
'T course, R
20 in our proceedings'you also have the Freedom of Information Act 21 for documents, as far as the staff goes.
You have the deposition i
22 process, and you have the technical documents of record.
And if 23 l a party in response to a request for additional interrogatories 24 could show that the information essentially was there and just 25 ! hadn't been read, I would think that that would cause a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
18 1
decision-maker to wonder whether somebody had prepared well p
2 enough to be asking interrogatories.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I keep hearing the FOIA
( ' ',
4 offered as an alternative.
To what extent is the FOIA really e
5 useful in the context of adjudicatory proceedings?
5l 6
MR. OLMSTEAD:
Most of our experienced counsel use it, R
R 7
as opposed to document interrogatories.
3
)
8 MR. SHAPAR:
The reason being that the FOIA has the dd 9
time constraints.
i h
10 MR. OLMSTEAD:
And you don't have to show relevance.
El 11 MR. BICKWIT:
But it is confined to documents.
It 3
y 12 doesn't deal with the situation where the mental processes of the 13 staff are probed.
S l
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
When you talk about the courts 2
15 tending to be harsh as to specificity, is there a tendency in N
j 16 those courts to limit the number of interrogatories to get single w(
17 questions framed in such a way as to pick up the basis for the 18 opinion of every witness in the case?
5 19 MR. OLMSTEAD :
There are usually single questions as R
20 to instead of asking, identify your witness on t his contention, 21 identify your witness on this contention, et cetera.
There is 22 usually one question.
I 23 I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Identify all the witnesses on l
24 all questions.
25l Just as a general matter, if you had filed 100 l
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
19 1
interrogatories in a recent case under the old rules, do you o
2 have any doubt that you could basically ask for the same 3
information in, say, 30 interrogatories, if you had to keep it to 3
4 that number?
=
I would have to spend more time writing 5l 6
them than I do now.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It would become an art, but do Xl 8
you doubt that you could do it?
dd 9
MR. OLMSTEAD:
I think I could do it.
The main thing i
h 10 I do now is I tend tc take the ones that we have used that have El 11 been successful and cut and paste them.
What this rule would do 3
d 12 is force me to write them specifically targeted to the case I am zx I
E 13 in.
E l
14 MR. SHAPAR; But it would take the attorney's time to 2
15 do that, and the attorney's time is very valuable is the premise g
16 we are working on.
M COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There is nothing comparable in g
17 5
5 18 a normal trial to supplements to the safety evaluation, is there?
19 In other words, a party here is faced with just a problem in X
20 rationing interrogatories, I would think.
21 MR. OLMSTEAD:
If you are talking about a million 22 dollar lawsuit, which in the article that was discussing that,
(
23 essentially in the federal district court, when you are talking l
24 about complex litigation, you do have cconomic changes within 25 the corporations that are involved.
So, you do have new ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
20 1
1 information constantly coming on record of all the cases in
{',
2 trial preparation.
The problem the courts have is somewhat 3
different than ours in that they have docket backloads that
{"N 4
preven Lthem from being able to go to trial when the parties are e
5 ready to go to trial.
So, there is a constant flow of new 5
6 information occurring over that period that does create a problem R
R 7
similar to what we have, although not precisely the same.
Xl 8
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I see.
dd 9
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is an interesting question.
If i
h 10 you use less than your 50 in this case, can you carry them 3l 11 forward into the next case?
R g
Il MR. SHAPAR:
Or sell them to another party.
5
(~
y 13 (Laughter.)
m l
14 MR. COTTER:
We can have a black market in 2
15 interrogatories.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I can see where the staff is going g
w g
17 to want a purchase fund for buying up contentions.
5 18 MR. BICKWIT:
It is a little like getting a license 0
19 issued before construction is complete and you get a credit.
R 20 Md. SHAPAR:
I think there is a point here that 21 perhaps should be emphasized, and thac is, the fact that the
(
22 courts are beginning to do this is as a result of the perceived 23,
recognition that the discovery de being abused in the court
(
24 process, and no one really argues about that.
It is being 25 l abused in the courts.
And a lot of articles have been written l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
21 1
about it, and part of the response to that is limitation of C
2 interrogatories.
3 So, I think a question you would want to ask yourself 4
is, do you think the interrogatories are being abused in our
=
5 process.
And I think the answer to that is yes.
5 6
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You not only tell us the R
R 7
question, but you give us the answer.
8 MR. COTTER:
The other thing the courts are doing in dd 9
this area, or what the majority of the courts are doing in this
- i h
10 area is telling their judges to control discovery.
E 3!
11 MR. SHAPAR:
But that is not the point I made.
I am d
12 saying that the reason they have chosen a method of doing it is E
(
13 l a response to a perceived recognition that the discovery process a
E 14 is being abuped.
- 4 2
15 MR. COTTER:
I endorse that concept, and I am saying 16 the majority response to it is for the individual judges to 3
as 6
17 l control the cases and the discovery.
!ii 18 MR. BICKWIT:
Item 6 is "what constitutes an E
19 interrogatory."
If there are to be 50 interrogatories, what R
20 exactly are you applying the number 50 to?
And the options that 21 we have suggested are, each question or subpart of a question, 22 whether or not designated as such, is an interrogatory; and t
23 then the second option is ---
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask you, suppose you fwantedcertaininformationabout various items of equipment.
25 ALDERSON REPORTING _ COMPANY, INC.
22 1
Suppose you said environmental qualification, which can cover, 2
you know, hundreds of items, would that be one question or a 3
question for each item?
(x
\\
4 MR. BICKWIT:
It would be impossible to answer all the e
5 questions that you are going to raise in this area.
3 6
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess my question really is, R
7 in practice is it -- you know, obviously there are going to be Xg8 gray areas, but is this a workable proposition to say this is a d
c 9
question or this is two questions?
,z h
10 MR. BICKWIT:
I think so.
That was the reaction we got.
El 11 MR. ROSENTHAL:
The judges are confronted with this.
m
(
12 I think thenpoint that has to be made here is you cannot, of k
13 course, lay down precise guidelines to cover every possible l
14 situation.
It has to be drawn broadly, and you have to then 2
15 trust the judgment of your adjudicators.
And that is essentially 5
16 g
the way the system operates in the courts.
w d
17 Now, it is quite true, just as no two judges might view 18 the question the same way -- one judge might regard it as being E
19 one question and another j udge might regard it as being three g
n 20 questions.
So, too, you are going to undoubtedly have different 21 reactions on the part of different licensing boards.
But that is
's 22 just the nature of the beast.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are saying it is a 24 workable proposition?
25 !
MR. ROSENTHAL:
Yes, I think it is a workable proposition; l
!)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
23 1
COMMISSI,0NER AHEARNE:
Len, what does the second part.of p
2 part (b) mean?
I don't understand what that excepts.
3 MR. BICKWIT:
I gather it is often a practice to say, N
4 to ask the question, is X true,and if so, what is your reasoning.
e 5
The question is, is that two questions, is that two b
6 interrogatories, or one interrogatory.
We say that is one 7
interrogatory.
8 MR. ROSENTHAL:
It is just like saying, do you believe dd 9
X, and if so, why.
That is frequently the case.
The first part i
h 10 of it calls for essentially a yes or no, or a very short answer, El 11 and then the second part of it is asking what is the basis for the m
6 12 conclusion stated in the short answer.
3
=
l 13 MR. SHAPAR:
If someone wants to ask an applicant an l
14 interrogatory like do you believe this plant is safe and why, I 2
15 think he could skip the first part and j ust go to the second.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would think so.
M d
17 MR. COTTER:
And that means it is one question.
E 5
18 MR. BICKWIT:
Once you have a rule like this, there E
19 will be a tendency for those putting forward interrogatories to R
20 have run-on sentences, to just ask as part of one question the 21 following questions, and we are saying that that will not'do,
(
22 except when the run-on sentence is, is this true and if so, 23, please state your reasons.
I 24 MR. COTTER:
Anotner example is, identify the names of l
25 all persons who have knowledge of a particular item and for each i
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
24 4
.. I such person list their name, address, phone number and the
(
2 nature of their knowledge.
That is one question.
3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is that, in fact, one 4
question?
I mean, those are subparts.
=
5 MR. BICKWIT:
I am afraid I missed the hypothetical.
h j
6 I have a feeling there won't be a clear answer, though.
R 7
MR. COTTER:
Name, address and nature of the informa-3l 3
tion that all those individuals having information for a d
m; 9
particular question.
z h
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think what you are beginning j
11 to prove is, as that article pointed out, the real problem of y
12 discovery is the people who practice it and the motives that 5
\\
13 they have in the practice.
~
l 14 MR. SHAPAR:
No, that wasn't the point of the article.
2 15 The point of the article was the judges were at fault.
That was j
16 the clear thrust of the article.
w 6
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, it could be name and 18 qualifications, if we come to that.
It seems reasonable that k
19 l where a part of an answer is yes or no, or John Smith, and then 20 they want to know why, why, that is okay, that is one question.
21 Next.
Let us snap through these.
22 MR. BICKWIT:
Next is what standard is to be applied I
23 '
for coing beyond the limit, whatever limit is set, and we pose 24 to you two basic options.
The second option, it should be noted, t
25 !
would focus on the nature of the interrogatories that were within I
i
}
OLDERSOM REPORTING COXPONU, Br#C,
25 I
the limit and make it relevant, how needful the proponent of the
('
2 interrogatory was with respect to those as well as the one in 3
question.
And on balance we think that really does have to be
{T 4
looked at.
=
5 If you don't look at that question, then you may have b
6 wasteful activity with respect to those that fall within the 7
limit and reserving until item 51 an interrogatory for which a 8
case is irresistable.
I am not saying that that tactic is going dd 9
to be used, but I think you have to build into your standard the i
h 10 prospect that it might be.
E 5
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
So the answer really is yes, d
12 then, to the question of whether at the time the 51st question is E=
(
e 13 submitted the board has to review all 51.
5 E
14 MR. BICKWIT:
If you pick option (b), the answer is a
2 15 yes.
If ycu pick option (a), the answer is no.
And we N
g 16 recommend option (b).
w 6
17 MR. SHAPAR:
But review in the sense of applying the N
18 s tandard, merely j ust looking at the basic kinds of questions 19 asked and was it done providently or improvidently.
20 MR. ROSENTHAL:
I don' t think that would take very long.
21 It is not going to require a close analysis of each of the first s
22 50.
I think a j udge can take a good look over the 50 and get a i
23 ! pretty quick feel for whether or not this particular party had i
24. been using the 50 interrogatories as a matter of right 25 promiscuously or not.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1
26 1
COMMIS5IONER BRADFORD:
What are the court standards (m
2 here?
Is this typical?
Do the court standards differ much?
3 MR. SHAPAR:
The court standard, I think, is good s
4 cause.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No more than that, just for 6l 6
good cause?
R R
7 MR. SHAPAR:
That
.'_s my understanding.
3 IB l
8 MR. BICKWIT:
Number 8 here, we think the answer is dd 9
obvious, that you don' t want to tell a party in a current i
h 10 proceeding who has already filed 45 interrogatories that he has El 11 now got five to go, or worse, if he has filed 55 that he is 3
g 12 over the limit, that he has to give five back.
b.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But would you say that if he l
14 has already started filing interrogatories?
2 15 MR. BICKWIT:
I would say that anything fjled is j
16 grandfathered.
w g
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Okay.
But if this were to go N
5 18 into effect, from that point on he is limited to 50.
k 19 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
R 20 On item 9, the recommendation is that motions to 21 compel should be permitted.
I am not clear on whether OELD
(,
22 joins in that recommendation.
23 MR. SHAPAR:
I am torn on this one, because you will I
24 I have gone two steps forward and one or one and a half steps back.
l 25 l
You are going to lose time there, at least 30 days or mo:
sith l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
27 I
the motions practice.
2 Another option would be that you don't allow motions to 3
compel, but.you say that if people don't answer the 4
interrogatories decently that sanctions will be applied.
=5 MR. BICKWIT:
I guess our view is the motion logical E
6 sanction to compel an answer to the questions.
7 MR. SHAPAR:
But you are paying a price for it, and you X
8 are paying a very heavy price in terms of the limited good this d
d 9
restriction on interrogatories will do.
The whole purpose of it z
h 10 is to pick up time.
Ej 11 MR. BICKWIT:
There is no doubt this is a big price.
g 12 MR. SHAPAR:
And you wiped out most of the time saving b
13 by allowing motions to compel.
l 14 MR. BICKWIT:
I think that is clear.
2 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Wait.
There is a flaw based upon Y
d6 the answer we heard yesterday.
]
as(
17 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
I accepted your proposition because 18 I didn't buy the answer.
=
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE,:
I see.
R 20 MR. BICKWIT:
On item 10 we recommend that the boards 21 should be provided with discretion to require oral respot'ses to
(
22 motions to compel.
That was part of the recommendation on 23 item (a)(1) of yesterday.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
They don't have that now?
25 MR. BICKWIT:
They don't.
As we read the rules, there ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
28
,a 1
is a right to file a response to a motion.
The discretion (3
2 relates to the time allowed, but a right to file, in my view, is 3
a right to a written response.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So, what is the recommendation here?
=
5 MR. BICKWIT:
The re, commendation is that the boards El 6
would have --
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Then why does mine say (b)?
Xl 8
MR. BICKWIT:
I can't answer that question.
On d
2 9
second thought I think (a) is preferable.
,z h
10 Then this is an item we discussed yest;rday relating 11 to express mail, and again we recommend that the boards, at their 3
y 12 discretion, be permitted to cut down the time for service.
(
S 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
This would be for all parties, 5m 14 that they would be allowed to require all parties?
15 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
What is contemplated is j
16 that they would use this when the issue was on the critical path, as d
17 there was some great need for expedition, and they wanted to meet M
18 that need.
And it could be phrased so as to confine them, their E
19 discretion, to those periods, but I don't think it is necessary.
20 COMMISSIONEK AHEARNE:
I gather, though, that your 21 schedule on the next page is based upon their requa. ring it.
(,
MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
I would suggest the 22 23 j
Commission urge the boards to require it where th*.s activity 2
takes place on the critical path.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would like to look at that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
29 1
schedule.
p 2
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could I ask two questions on 3
this?
b 4
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The first question:
Air Mxpress j
6 mail can be very expensive.
Now, I don't know, other than the R
7 staff, who sends voluminous filings.
I am sure that it would be 3l 8
substantial costs to the NRC.
Do some of the other parties have dn 9
voluminous filings?
z h
10 MR. BICKWIT:
I am sure they do.
We are talking about, Ej 11 in the typical case, service by intervenors of interrogatories 3
12 on the staff.
(.
13 MR. OLMSTEAD:
We frequently have voluminous filings by l
14 all parties in complex cases, although it is not infrequent for 2
15 the intervening groups and applicants and the staff to use air Y
j 16 express now among themselves, even though they all compute the w
g 17 times based on the five days for mail.
We are doing that in two 5
M 18 cases at this very day, air expressing one another from E
19 California to here so that we all have the necessary time to a
20 review.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is that intervenor the State of 22 California?
23 l MR. OLMSTEAD:
No.
One of the parties if the State of 24 California and the other one is a group known as Joint i
25 [ Intervenors, and they are using air express.
I i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
30 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was just obviously concerned
-s 2
about the potential. large financial burden on the groups.
3 MR. BICKWIT:
I think that concern is well picced.
{m
~
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The other question I had was on
=
5 the responses that -- I will pass that.
That was on the
!]
6 summary, and that is another issue.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The schedule, if I look at the one Xl 8
which is attached to this paper, I add to it what, 15 days to dd 9
prepare contentions, revised contentions?
$g 10 MR. BICKWIT:
I would think maybe even ten.
We haven't El 11 really focused on that question, but I think ---
3 y
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So, at 85 we would prepare our k
13 revised contentions, and at 87 parties receive them, the staff l
14 receives them and everybody receives them, right?
2 15 MR. BICKWIT:
Right.
j 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, that brings us to some sort of w
6 17 a reference point that I can go and look at that same point on M
18 other tracks.
Furthermore, before we go away from the proposed
=
19 schedule that is hung on the back of your interrogatory limita-R 20 tion memorandum, are these times practical?
21 MR. BICKWIT:
I would like to hear comment from others 22 on it.
My assumption is that they are, but I would like to hear 23 !
comments.
24 MR. SHAPAR:
They look reasonable.
25 j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You know, here comes the SSER and I
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
31 I
the parties get it.
Now they have got ten days to prepare (m
2 interrogatories and motions, or additional ones, and so on.
As 3
I go through, why, somebody holler if he doesn't think it is r(x' 4
practical.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There are probably not too many l
6 people here that are the ones that prepare interrogatories on 7
the SSER.
Nl 8
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is one point.
The other dd 9
is that in the public comments I guess we did have some that said 10 that even the -- which was it, the proposed rule line was Ej 11 impractical.
So, I think to the extent that those comments can be
?
g 12 carried over to' this one, to the extent that the times are the
=
(
E 13 same.
E l
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRI4-Sut you remember in the proposed 2
15 rule, what it said was the bu2". issues and then there is a 25 day U
j 16 period, and at the end of the 25 day period it did the w
g 17 equivalent of what it now takes us 87 days to do.
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
I don't know where the k
19 concern was.
If it is there, then you are right.
They are 50 R
20 days bette off, 62 to be precise.
21 Ch4IRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
The telephone conference, the 22 staff gets 12 days to answer the first 50, from day 14 to 26.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is that enough?
24 l
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What do you think?
l 25 MR. ROSENTHAL:
I will defer to OELD.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
32 j
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think for purposes of 2
answering the question you ought to assume that unresponsive, 3
replies will be honored trith a motion to compel, and so the
(
4 pressure then will be to make sure on the staff that each
=
5 response is really responsive.
5 6
MR. DENTON:
We don't make unre,sponsive replies, and o 7
that is why I think we are complaining today about the number of 8
interrogatories.
So, I don't think the quality would change.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But that is why the question 10 is, to d'o 50 is 12 days an adequate period of time?
11 MR. DENTON:
Obviously, we can handle 50 in 12 days.
3 d
12 You are just paying the price that the staff may not be working 3
(
on unresolved safety issues, TMI action plans.
13 S
The tend to fall within one discipline.
In other E
14,
u 2
15 words, usually there is a major issue or two in the hearing.
So, 5
16 it doesn't involve the entire staff.
But we do have entire
~
-3 ui 6
17 branches who in this process, during this interrogatory period, E
!E 18 aren't acrking for you or I, they are answering interrogatories b
for a week or ten days, and I envision that we would have to 19 R
20 assign more and more branch members to answer them during this 21 12 days period.
We would have to throw a lot of resources if 22 they required substantive replies.
s We don't have any trouble with the factual ones, like 23,
24 the example, state your witnesses and their skills and so forth.
1 25 '
It is this probing the mind, what did you mean.somewhere and I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
33 1
provide a complete rationale.
(m 2
So, it seems a little short in time, 12 days in terms e
3 of working days isn't a lot.
(~s 4
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I don't think these are working
=
5 days.
El 6
MR. DENTON:
That is what I mean.
They aren't that Rg 7
many in working days and they are calendar days.
But it seems 3
g 3
worthwhile to me to try to keep the number down, dd 9
MR. BICKWIT:
The courts have found periods of time i
h 10 longer than this to be impractical under the federal rules.
E i
11 However, I would defer to the staff on whether this is a job that 12 can be done.
k 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Wait a minute.
You are saying a
l 14 they have found the times longer ---
2 15 MR. BICKWIT:
Longer than this to be impracticably j
14 short.
g 17 MR. COTTER:
The standard term was about 20 days, and Y
18 that normally was subj ect to extension.
=
19 MR. BICKWIT:
But I think a better gauge is not those R
20 court cases, but the staff responses to what job can be done in 21 what period of time.
22 MR. OLMSTEAD:
I think there needs to be an element of l
23 l
pragmatism inj ected here.
l l
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
We are talking about the 25 schedules.
L
{
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
34
,o 1
MR. OLMSTEAD:
Yes, I understand.
Most of the people p
2 here are making assumptions about the adversary nature of 3
interrogatory responses that don't exist when the party agrees 4
they have to respond.
If I have a problem, or if another
=
5 attorney has a problem because a question is going to take a few
$j 6
extra days to respond to, you pick up the phone and call the 7
opposing counsel and say, we want to respond to your 8
interrogatory but it is going to take us an extra couple of days dd 9
to do it; he says fine, and the board never hears about it.
That 10 is the end of it.
!!!l 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But that is not when you have is.
(
12 this kind of a schedule.
(
13 MR. OLMSTEAD:
It is when you have this kind of a l
14 schedule if you are not going to get a motion to compel.
You are 2
15 only going to get a motion to compel where you are not going to 5
g 16 respond.
vi g
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think you are making my point k
18 b ut in a different way.
I think what you are really saying is i
19 that on a lot of the questions, if they are hard, 26 days is not 5
20 correct.
21 MR. OLMSTEAD:
The rule currently is 14 days, and we y
22 currently make that, I would say, 95 percent of the time.
23 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Fourteen days from day ::ero, 24 i SSER published?
t l
MR. OLMSTEAD:
No.
From the time we get a request, a 25 I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
35 B
1 set of interrogatories until we must respond, we have 14 days.
(~)
2 This schedule provides 12.
And we normally are ready to respond, 3
it is in ELD for review and discussion with the witnesses a (3
' ~
4 coupld of days before th%t.
=
5 If we feel there is additional information that ought 5l 6
to be provided, it is at that time that we make some other Rg 7
arrangement.
But we generally can meet those times if we are not Xl 8
inundated with a tremendous number of questions to answer.
And d
d 9
then Harold's people do start to scream because it does impact 10 their other work more significantly.
Ej 11 MR. COTTER:
I thought that was your point, though, 3
g 12 that you were inundated with too many questions, and that would k-
=
13 suggest that a cu normally don't meet that.
l 14 MR. OLMSTEAD:
But I think there is a lot of 2
15 informality associated with this.
I mean, every single question U
g 16 doesn't raise an adversarial relationship with the parties in w
g 17 j the proceeding.
Thers is a lot of negotiation that goes on and 18 l agreement among the parties as to what is feasible, and it is l
E" 19 only in those areas where I, as ar. attorney, feel that that 20 question is improper and the other party feels it is very proper 21 that you.get into the situation where you are into the motions 22 to compel.
23 MR. COTTER:
Well, there are other situations where, 24 for *xample, you think the question is proper but you right not 25 ;
want to answer it fully, and so you give an evasive answer, and i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 36 i
1 then they file a motion to compel, or vice versa, as the case b
2 may b e.
~
3 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Well, I suppose.
I don't think that O'
4 happens very often.
.5 MR. SHAPAR:
I think you ought to edit that one.
It ll 6
doesn't happen very often as far as staff responses are 7
concerned.
X{
8 MR. COTTER:
I didn't mean to limit that to the staff d
d 9
as a matt ?r of practice in discovery.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, there is'something like 27 days El 11 in here that do associate with the motion practice on the motion iii y
12 to compel.
It does move it along, doesn't it?
b 13 MR. BICKWIT:
It does.
I think you have to understand l
14 that there will be fewer motions to compel with this change and U
15 there will be fewer granted with this change than under the 16 previous schedules, so that there will be many more times where g
us g
17 the full 75 days is not taken than with respect to the previous
- s b
18 s chedule.
=
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Why is that?
R 20 MR. BICKWIT:
Because as Bill has pointed out, so many 21 of these motions to compel are because the staff simply won't
( ;
22 answer the question, and here you are going to have some kind of I
23 : board determination at the outset as to which questions must be l
24 l answered and which needn't be answered.
So, the motions to 25 compel will deal only with situations where the staff has ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
37 1
answered the question but has done it inadequately.
'J 2
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Isn't that only true is you get 3
more than the allowed number of questions?
Is the, board going to review them anyway if there are 40?
4
=
5 MR. BICKWIT:
I would assume not, but in each case the h
j 6
staff knows, even if it is within the 50 or over the 50, the R
R 7
staff knows that it must answer the questions.
The staff will X
g S
answer the questions.
S'o that the only motion to compel that dd 9
lies will be with respect to an inadequately answered question.
i h
10 COMMISSIONER BRALPORD:
Why does the staff know that E'g 11 it must answer a question that the board hasn't reviewed?
E y
12 MR. BICKWIT:
The board will have reviewed the questions
=
(-
13 that staff receives.
If leave is granted above the 50, the l
14 staff will know -- we are assuming that if it is within the 50 2
15 that staff knows that. it has got to answer that questior..
g 16 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Not if it is irrelevant.
w g
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is what I was after.
5 13 MR. ROSENTHAL:
I think the point, though,
=
19 Commissioner Bradford, is that where you are dealing basically 20 within a limitation of 50 -- sure, it may be extended, but you i
21 are not dealing with 200 or 250 or some other vast number -- it
(
22 is much less likely that you are going to get a fight be*. ween the 23 staff and the other parties over particular interrogatories.
To 24 b e s ure, if there is one that is clearly out of the ballpark in 25 that 50, the staff might come in and complain about it.
But there ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
38 I
is a much greater incentive if the staff is confronting 200 b'
2 interrogatories and the OELD is trying to protect NRR's 3
resources for the staff to be in there refusing to answer and O
4 producing a motion to compel.
5 MR. BICKWIT:
May I just respond to your reference to j
6 1rrelevant questions?
We are assuming with this schedule that G
7 it will be standard practice for the proponent of the Kl 8
interrogatory to go before a board and say, I want to exceed this d
ci 9
limit.
The board, if they adopt the standard that we have used, 8
10 will look not only at the overage, but at those within the 50.
E 11 MR. ROSENTHAL:
I understand that.
I am talking about is y
12 the case of where the party is confining the number of its 3
l 13 interrogatorics to 50 or less, and puts up a couple that staff a
l 14 thinks are way out in left field.
9, 15 MR. BICKWIT:
In that case you won't even go before a j
16 board and you will r' educe the early part of.the schedule.
In us
{
17 either case this is a much softer number in the sense that it
=
{
18 won't be used nearly as often as under the previous schedule.
E 19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
In theory that ought to be g
20 right.
The reason I think it may not be, though, is the 21 exchange I had earlier with Bill where I think we agreed that a b,
22 party that was using 100 questions under the old rule might be 23 able to do it in 30 on this one.
That is, j ust by making one's 24 questions more sweeping.
The parties may wind up asking for the t..
25 j same amount of information from the staff that they were, and then ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
39
'I whatever percentage of those questions that the staff was O'
2 resisting before, they will have to resist again within the 3
. confines of the 50.
Obviously that is not going to be true in 4
all cases.
There are going to be some parties who, when they
=
5 focus on the need for 50, are j ust going to drop' some questione.-
h 6
But to the extent that the art does get developed to the point G
7 where people can ask for everything that they want to within 50 Kl 8
questions, I don't see that there is going to be a lot of ---
d c!
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Then that won't have any 10 impact, or wouldn't have any negative impact.
E j
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, that is right.
It won't it j
12 make things worse.
But I am j ust saying that it seems to me &
(-
x 13 lot of the same exposure is going to exist within the 50 l
14 questions.
The same kinds of issues are going to arise in 15 roughly the same quantity as was the case with the 100 of the j
16 more carelessly thrown together questions, if you will.
as d
17 MR. COTTER:
I would assume there would be a certain 5
!E 18 amount of argument over preciseness of questions.
Frequently a
=
C 19 response to an interrogatory is that it is either too vague or 20 it is too broad, and I assume there would be some motions 21 practice going back and forth over that, because if you are i
22 limited to a specific number of interrogatories you are going to c
23 try and, as you say, cram as much into them as possible and make 24 them as broad as possible.
I 25 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Two points.
Yesterday we were talking l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
40 s
1 about the discovery against the other parties precedirig this 2
set of schedules we have, which I assume would still be the case.
3 And secondly, the line we are looking at is the last line, which
(':
4 says limit interrogatories or higher standard, which includes
-5 the assumption that in that case the staff would use 2.720(h)(.2),
bj 6
which forces the board to rule on the interrogatories prior to 7
the staff answering.
Ml 8
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Of course, once you have that, dd 9
then, of course, the staff is going to answer everything that i
h 10 survives that.
!!!l 11 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Right, and you are not going to have the is y
12 motion to compel.
E
(
j 13 MR. BICKWIT:
You will have fewer motions to compel.
m
]
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Where does that appear in this 2
15 schedule?
It does not?
j 16 MR. BICKWIT:
No, it does not appear in the schedule.
m 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What would one do to this schedule 18 to put it in?
19 MR. BICKWIT:
What I would do is, you may remember that 2
20 when we estimated an eight month schedule we said for planning 21 purposes assume ten months, because if you have a schedule that 22
- i. designed for eight months, it is going to last for ten months.
l I would include it in some sense in estimating what kind of 23 24 planning assumption you ought to make.
I would be much less i
25 inclined to say that if you have got an eight month schedule with ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
41 I
this kind of activity comprising 75 days of it that you are going
(~s 2-to have to allow for tw'o months for things to go wrong.
I would 3
be more inclined to allow for one month for things to go wrong, (3
4 because you may well be getting a month's credit or more.
e 5
CHAIRMAN EENDRIE:
But if I just wanted to see in a bl 6
given case where everything was going to bump along sort of as 7
bad as it can go, but people were -- well, where is there in M]
8 here some coverage for the proposition that the boards were going dd 9
to take a look at the interrogatories before the staff answers?
i h
to MR. BICKWIT:
That is in here.
That is the beginning Ej 11 of this schedule.
m y
12 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Chairman Hendr'..e, if you will take the
(
g 13 last line on your time line that we gave you yesterday, where it
=
l 14 says limit interrogatories or higher standard, and go to day 2
15 64, and make that day 73, and add nine days all the rest of the 5
f 16 way out, you will have it.
w g
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No, I think I have to make it 75 5
18 and then add ---
=
b 19 MR. BICKWIT:
There,is 15 for revised contentions.
5 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But somebody told me we could do 21 10 for contentions.
22 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is how I got it.
'fou were l
24 j saying one of your assumptions on that last line was that boards i
25 ; were going to take a lock at the interrogatories or the staff I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
42 I
answered them.
Now, that is not what is going on here.
(~%
2 MR. BICKWIT:
That is what is going on in this schedule 3
and the schedule that we have been reviewing.
The board is em
\\'
4 looking at the interrogatories before staff answers them.
=
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Where do they do that?
E 6
MR. BICKWIT:
They do that on day 19 They have their 7
conference.
And on day 29 they rule on whether those
- l 8
interrogatories were proper.
dd 9
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
This just talks about additional 10 interrogatories over the 50?
E
~j 11 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
y 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You mean to include here ---
13 MR. BICKWIT:
I think the standard case is going to be 5
l 14 tnat someone is going to want leave to go beyond the 50, and b
k 15 under these circumstances the board will be looking not only at i
j 16 what is over 50, but what is also proposed to be asked within the e
i 17 50.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, but in rather a different way.
=
19 They will be looking at the first 50 just to see if the fellow n
20 seems to have made reasonably efficient use of his 50.
They 21 won't be looking at them one by one in the sense that they would 22 if there was a specific motion before them, say, from staff or 23 counsel saying this particular interrogatory is too vague, we 24 don't want to answer it.
25 !
MR. BICKWIT:
I don't want to speak for the staff, but l
l AfLDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
j
43 1
I would assume that if the board says these 55 interrogatories 2
are okay, the 5 do exceed the limit but we grant leave to file 3
them, with respect to the 50 things look pretty good to us,
~
4 there doesn't appear to be any abuse here, would staff in those
=
5 circumstances be inclined not to answer one of the 50?
]
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
On your schedule the staff has R
d 7
already answered those 50.
K j
8 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
I am assuming that staff 4
q 9
is going to answer those 50.
z h
10 MR. OLMSTEAD:
When we looked at the schedule, what we j
11 assumed was that we would use 2.720(h)(2) at day 19 if we thought y
12 the interrogat6 ries were improper, namely the board would have to
(
5 5
13 direct the staff to answer any..
m l
14 CHAIRMA!! HENDRIE:
You would have to file those motions- -e 5
15 MR. OLMSTEAD:
We would have to do that on day 19 on j
16 the schedule.
e
^
b 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You would have to do it before then.
18 The board can't have a telephone conference on a motion that is P"
19 in, you know, the ---
R 20 MR. BICKWIT:
No.
The staff would be answering that 21 motion by telephone, and the board would be ruling on the basis
(.-
22 of the staff answer.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I see.
24 MR. COTTER:
Len, I suspect you would get all kinds of 25 objections to that procedure from the individual board members.
L l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
44 1
They would be very leery of it.
In fact, the other day at the O'
2 seminar somebody got up and proposed that all telephone 3
conference calls be banned because when you get more than four
(")
4 people on the phone you can't hear anybody.
There may be
=
5 variations of that and you can work around it, I don't know.
5 l
6 MR. BICKWIT:
If we pull back from that concept, then R
Q 7
you are stretching the schedule a bit.
Xl 8
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In your schedule here you seem to dd 9
have built in the staff responding to a motion to compel.
10 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
Ej 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought our rules did not give 3
y 12 that right.
(
13 MR. BICKWIT:
There is a right to a motion to compel 5
l 14 against the staff.
2 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
But for the staff to 5
g 16 respond to that motion.
w 6
17 MR. COTTER:
Orally.
U 18 MR. BICKWIT:
I see.
Whether there is a right to 5
19 respond?
I believe there is a right to respond.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I have in front of me -- I 21 may be wrong, but it is a recent board, and it says, the i
22 governing rule of practice does not appear to contemplate a reply 23, pleading to a motion to compel.
24 MR. BICKWIT:
Well, I don't know where it savs that in l
l 25 !
the rule.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
45 l
1 MR. OLMSTEAD:
We don't agree with that particular 2
board decision, and there are conflicting decisions on that point.
3 MR. BICKWIT:
Is that an ongeing proceeding?
4 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Yes.
I don't think you want to discuss
=
5 it here.
h j
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You are building in your R
7 schedule that p"ovision.
3l 8
MR. BICKWIT:
Except the right to respond is taking dd 9
very little time under this concept, because the response is by i
h 10 phone.
E j
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But it is five days, since we m
j 12 are arguing in and out on a few days.
And I just was wondering
(
Q 13 whether you were explicitly building in a right which didn't l
14 e xis t.
g 15 MR. BICKWIT:
I guess it is questionable whether it a
g 16 exists.
w 6
17 MR. COTTER:
Have you all thought about whether or not 5
{
18 what impact this would have on voluntary discovery?
E 19 MR. OLMSTEAD:
The way voluntary discovery normally X
20 works, it is truly voluntary.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't see why it would make any 22 difference at all.
Why would it?
The staff just puts the 23, documents in the dockets file.
l 24 MR. COTTER:
It is much more beyond that.
The parties 25 get together and frequently it is certainly conceivable that they i
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
46 1
could take care of all discovery informally without going to any O"
2 of this.
3 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Well, if we think that voluntary p
s
4 discovery won't cost too much in terms of resources and it has a 5
chance of saving time, we will continue.
e 5
6 MR. COTTER:
I am thinking, for example, wasn't it up.
7 at Three Mile Island where they simply had the FEMA people come 8
in and describe their practices and procedures and discuss it and d
d 9
answer questions and that sort of stuff, and as a consequence i
h 10 there was no FEMA discovery.
Ej 11 MR. OLMSTEAD:
We try to do a lot of that.
I think you g
12 have to realize, though, that discovery is used as a dilatory
(
13 tool, and the fact that o,ne may get a lot of voluntary compliance l
14 from the staff does not necessarily mean they are not going to 2
15 file interrogatories on you.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I seem to have a schedule here which
- W g
17 runs 87 or whatever days, and may have to run somewhat more than 5
18 that, because, A, that telephone conference at day 19 may not
=
19 wash and have to be expanded into a week or two of coming and X
l 20 going; secondly, there isn't explicit note in here of allowing a 21 party to complain that he doesn' t like the interrogatories except I
22 that telephone conference.
So, it could expand more than just a i
! couple of days for rapid mailings each way, but to allow time for 23 l
24 l more things to go back and forth and be decided.
Down along the 25 line there is a place where interrogatories that are being l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
47 1
compelled on the staff _are going to be answered in six days.
b
~ '
2 Maybe that is practical, maybe not.
3 Now, this schedule gets us up to the place where 4
revised contentions have been filed, and the board is now 5
presumably ready to pick up the activity on these one line e
b 6
tracks that says prehearing conference.
R R
7 MR. BICKWIT:
So, that is 215 days.
Xl 8
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What is 215 days?
d d
9 MR. BICKWIT:
Beyond the 87 until you get to a board Ig 10 decision.
El 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, let's talk about that after a w
j 12 while.
The question I want to raise is, there is a line that i
5 13 says present rule that gets me to this place that I think I am l
14 at 87 or 87 plus a couple.
There is a line up there that says 2
15 present rule that gets me there on day 64.
j 16 Now, I guess what you are going to explain to me is M
g 17 that that line doesn't have in it all of the problems laid end 18 to end that this most recent schedule does.
Otherwise, it E"
19 appears to me that I am spending a lot of time figuring out ways R
20 to lengthen the overall hearing process.
While, you know, life 21 always has these ugly surprises in it, at least that was not my 22 intention in this series of meetings.
23 l
MR. BICKWIT:
You have rulings after 64 on the 1
24 present rule.
You have still got to serve the response and you 25 l have got to rule on the motions to compel.
You have got to serve l
l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
48 "I
those, and then you have further discovery responses.
All of O'
2 those things happen on the present rule after day 64.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Does that all come out, then, l
4 approximately where we are on today's schedule?
5 MR. COTTER:
I believe yesterday's testimony was 103 5l 6
days und(; the present rule.
Wasn't that the number you were k7 using?
8 MR. SHAPAR:
It is the testimony filing days.
Bill dd 9
will explain'why.
- i h
10 MR. OLMSTEAD:
You need to compare the testimer.y filing
!!!l 11 date on these lines, because the present rule is the only line it y
12 that does not make the proposed rule assumptions.
All of the 5
(-
g 13 changes that you have considered under the proposed rule resulted L4 l
14 in a different time line, and so the rest of these lines compare 2
15 to the proposed rule line.
5 y
16 So, if you want to see and compare what kind of time as 6
17 you are saving, the only common point on all the lines is the 18 testimony filing date, which is required to be 15 days prior to E
19 the start of the hearing.
So, if you will notice, on the present R
20 rule you get to.that point at day 155 That subsumes within it 21 the 103 days.
Where the proposed rule, you don't have 103 days
(
22 prior to that point, so those motions to compel and that motion 23 practice has to be shown on the charts.
And with this proposed 24 schedule worked into the bottom line of that chart, I computed 25 a testimony filing day at day 119 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
49 1
MR. SHAPAR: As contrasted with?
l
(~%
\\
2 MR. OLMSTEAD:
With 155 3
MR. BICKWIT:
I think the easiest way to look at this, 4
and correct me if you disagree, B111, is that instead, if you look
=
5 at the proposed rule and instead of zero to 25, you n'ow have El 6
zero to 87, you have got where we now are, with one minor R
.7 change, and that is the filing of proposed findings has expanded K
']
8 as a result of yesterday's action from 40 days to 55 days, dd 9
So, where you are is, you have 87 in lieu of 25, and 10 55 in lieu of 40.
El 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That adds 77 days.
k 12 MR. OLMSTEAD:
That would make your testimony file day k-13 147, rather than 155 So, you are saving eight days over the 14 current rule under that calculation.
2 15 MR. BICKWIT:
You want to know the sum total.
I don't U
g 16 know whether that is where you are going, but the sum total, as I d
i 17 see it, under this schedule is 240 plus 77 M
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is gring to be the best part of
=
U 19 317 days and a shade longer than ---
H 20 MR. BICKWIT:
It is a shade longer than where you want 21 to be, but as I said before, I no longer think it is appropriate l,
22 to add two months to that for planning purposes, because what you
(
I 23 have got here is a much softer schedule.
I think it is muen more 24 appropriate to add something like one.
l 25l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I wouldn't add anything.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
50 1
MR. BICKWIT:
That is 11 months, 11 months is a cutback n#
2 from the 12 to 13 months that was initially included in our 3
Bevill schedule, so that you cut back one to two _ months the 4
period of time between issuance of the SSER and the initial
=
5 decision.
b 6
MR. SHAPAR:
By subtracting the assumed margin.
R 7
MR. BICKWIT:
By subtracting a month of it.
M g
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I wouldn't put any margin in.
The d
d 9
value in the norts of limitations on the number of interrogatories 2
h 10 that are in the current proposal then are twofold.
First of all, 3j 11 it will save some staff resources if they have to answer fewer E
g 12 interrogatories.
Second, they are much more likely to make these
('
13 dates, and if you don' t have that-limitation and you have to
~
{
14 struggle.through 200 in 12 days, et cetera, you are much less 2
15 likely to make it.
U f
16 MR. BICKWIT:
You have a period of time under this w
g 17 schedule, this 75 day schedule, where I would assume that in a 18 large number of cases one month of that is coming out.
E g
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
.That is why I wouldn't add a month, l
20 because when I talk about an average case, which I don't know 1
21 the particulars yet, for purposes of downstream scheduling of i
(
22 staff reviews, you know, if this schedule is going to be as 23,
often minus a. month as plus, then I ought to use it without the i
24 month gratuitous factor thrown in.
And then what will happen is, s,
25l I will win some and lose some, and on average come out about ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYo INC.
51 1
right.
But it sure seems tedious.
It takes five months to get
- {'s 2
the testimony filed no matter what we do, apparently.
A 3
MR. BICKWIT:
As has been pointed out, there_are 0'
4 options that could cut that down which the Commission is not
=
5 inclined to take.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
147 was the current number?
R -
g 7
MR. OLMSTEAD:
That is if you use the assumptions that Al 8
he was reading to you.
If you want to take that line 3 and dd 9
overlap part of this process with the revised contentions and i
h 10 prehearing conference, you could file testimony on day 119 But z
mf11 then you are compressing the schedule a little bit.
I can walk D
12 you through that and tell you how it would work.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes', I guess you had better.
l 14 MR. OLMSTEAD:
If you take the schedule you have got at 2
15 day 73, which is staff response to additional interrogatories, g
16 and aubstitute that for day 64 on that last line, then day 79 m
g 17 remains revised contentions and becomes day 85 o.ff of this 18 chart.
Your prehearing conference order then becomes day 100,
=
19 and your board ruling becomes day 110, and that ruling date can R
20 also be the date for ruling on any motions to compel that might 21 have been filed.
22 Then your testimony file date -- I mean your responses 23 to any additional interrogatories ---
(
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Wait, you j ust lost me.
The board 25 ruling'on motions to compel occurs on this schedule back at i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
52
)
4 I
day 65 O
N 2
MR. OLMSTEAD:
Okay.
That is taken care of.
But if 3
you overlap this, the point I am making is you have got a
{ ^;
4 prehearing conference and a board ruling date there that can
=
5 clean up any of these other discovery problems that have been h
g 6
raised.
R 7
Let 's j ust leave day 65 alone.
The testimony file l
8 date is the day 119 You are essentially reducing the period d
d 9
for filing testimony by 15 days.
2 h
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Fifteen days from what ?
11 MR. OLKSTEAD:
The proposed rule has 30 days in there 3
g 12 for filing of testimony., I am pulling that out because of this S
13 elongated discovery procedure that you have overlapped here, and 5m E
14 because they get the initial response to interrogatories at 2
15 day 73 So that from that point on the party that is revising n
g 16 their contentions knows what the discovery information is and w
g 17 what their revised contentions are.
All they don't have is a
{
18 board ruling.
So, they essentially have that time which exceeds E
19 30 days to prepare testimony, from day 73 to day 119.
H 20 So, rather than leave 30 days to prepare testimony in 21 there, you can reduce that time.
22 MR. BICKWIT:
Do you regard that as reasonable?
23 MR. OLMSTEAD:
If I am the party revising my i
24 contentions and I have all the responses to discovery I am going 25j to get, 30 days from that point to prepare testimony is amply ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
53 I
surficient.
2 Now, the other parties are at a slight disadvantage 3
because they don't know yet just which contentions 'the board is
'O
'~~
4 going to let in.
But for the most part they are going to know e
5 what the contentions are by that time.
It is as though you are El 6
awaiting a motion for summary disposition ruling and you haven't G
7 got it yet.
You go ahead and prepare on the contention and if g
l 8
you get summary disposition you stop the effort.
That has just d4
-9 recently happened to us in several cases, i
h 10 Then you can stay on that 279 day schedule, because El 11 the party has 30 days to prepare the testimony.
You are just 3
y 12 overlapping it.
(
~5 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The rest of you talk among l
14 yourselves for a while.
Commissioners, let me address myself to 2
15 you.
U y
16 On the basis that either you may share some of my W
6 17 inability to follow the arithmetic here, or that you understand
~
5 18 it perfectly but are willing to allow me the luxury of wallowing m
C 19 around until I understand it, what I am going to suggest is that g
20 we ask the ad hoc group, please, Bill, with your participation, 21 to -- I don't care whether you do it on a time line like this
)
22 one, but if you do, make it big enough so I can read the 23 ; numbers.
Or, if you do it this way, that is fine, too.
24 What I would like to have is the present situation as 25 b est we understand it, and the situation which would prevail ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
54.
I under -- let me ask them to do it for this limitation of 50 and
(-
2 the board looks at an appeal for more and motion to compel and 3
so on, because I am not asking you for an opinion at this time
(
4 about it, but it is still at least a possible practice that we e
5 take up.
]
6 What is happening is that the numbers, that these R
7 assorted things don't go together, and every time I think I am K
8 beginning to see where it fits together, why, somebody says dd 9
something else which j ust leaves me flat out in left field 2
h 10 again. -It is nobody's fault.
Ej 11 Now, if you find in these schedules, as would not k
12 surprise me a bit, that in fact there is not such a thing as a 13 simple single line with series steps, but rather more seme
]
14 possible parallel lines and so on, why, I invite you to try to 2
15
' find a way to summarize that for the uninitiate like myself.
U 16 g
Now, I would like to come back, then, to this subject w
g 17 come Tuesday next when the meetings previously scheduled have 5
{
18 both -- it turns out they have decayed and the new schedule will E
19 give us an opportunity to meet again.
R 20 That gives you some time to sort these things out.
21 MR. SHAPAR:
Are those the only two lines that you 22 want?
Do you want any other comparisons?
l 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I will look dowr. the table and say
(
24 it seems to me tuat it is conceivable that votes could be l
25 scraped up for air express, you know, the fast mailing and stuff, r
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t 55 I
and maybe an initial limitation on the number of interrogatories, 2
and my guess' is that I couldn't scrape up votes for anything'
~
3 more than that in this line.
b
'~
4 Now, does anybody dispuLa that?
e 5
COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
I think you are right.
El 6
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And I would like to continue to R
7 probe, men, these two avenues in terms of a possible schedule, M
8 and in terms of what might then follow to complete the Part 2 dd 9
rule changes.
i h
10 Now, when we know how all of trut goes, then I think 3j 11 we can complete the policy statement.
But at the moment, why, it k
g 12 seems to me that I need to ask staff to -regroup the literature
(
13 of these times lines to help me, and that is not something that l
14 is handy to do right here at the table with everybody waiting for 2
15 the next development.
And I think just the two time lines.
It n
g 16 is, in effect, the top one and the bottom one, except this w
p 17 business of what happens -- you know, you did the bottom one on s
M 18 the basis that the boards were going to look at all of the E
19 interrogatories in the first instance and say, answer this pile, R
20 don't answer that pile, right?
21 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Right.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, that is not in the ad hoc 23 group's plan and schedule.
24 MR. OLMSTEAD:
But the rule is, 2.720(h)(2) is 25 certainly still in the rules.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
56 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
But there is a rule which says if 2
you don't like one you can ask the board to look at it.
3 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Nobody can ask the staff interrogatories
~
4 if the staff objects' without first getting a board ruling.
=
5 CHAIRMAN'HENDRIE:
And that is the present rule.
bj 6
MR. OLMSTEAD:
That is the present rule.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So, you can, in effect, without any Xl 8
rule change at all, compel that look by the board on any dd 9
interrogatory that'you think improper.
N 10 MR. OLMSTEAD:
That is right.
3 5
11 CHAIRMAN !HEf!DRIE:
It seems to me reasonable to build 0
g 12 that practice into this schedule.
h 13 MR. BICKWIT:
Mr. Chairman, I think it is in this C
l 14' schedule.
2 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, you think it is in.
Good.
f 16 When the thing is redrafted, you know ---
w g
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If the Commission just said in 5
18 its policy statement we are concerned about abuse of discovery, E
i9 we expect the staff to use 2.270(h)(2), and the boards to R
20 manage, what are the impedf.ments to having that work itself out 21 in at least as sensible a way as the much more detailed 22 instructions that we are considering now?
23 MR. BICKWIT:
Well, the only difference, I think, is 24 the limitation on interrogatories, i
i 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I am even wondering about ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 57 1
that.
For one thing one could, of course, put a limitation into
(~
2 a statement like that, but even if you didn't, the. question is 3
whether you start with 50 and then have the boards review it and
(
4 work up, or whether you put a statement in saying we expect the e
5 board to manage the interrogatory process and avoid abuse of bl 6
discovery, in which case the board would have to review the R
R 7
interrogatories and perhaps work down.
But the net result, in 8
theory, ought to be that the same amount of information, namely dd 9
that which the board thought important, would get exchanged.
Ng 10 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Except if.the board is confronted with Ej 11 200 interrogatories and there is no fixed limitation and all of U
g 12 those 200 interrogatories are in the ballpark in the sense that 5
13 they are at least arguably relevant, et cetera, what basis would l
14 the board have for saying, well, staff, you only have to answer 2
15 50 or them or 75 of them or whatever?
E y
16 The advantage of having the limitation is that the ---
M d
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are you saying, Alan, the 5
18 board couldn't adopt 50 as a number on its own?
E 19 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Well, I don't know on what basis.
20 Obviously, I suppose, if someone came in with 3,000 21 interrogatories the board might say harrassment.
But it is a 22 little bit difficult if a party is coming in, there is no 23 limitation fixed, and the party comes in with a large group of 24 them and the staff goes in and says, well, we can't say that 25 these are not relevant, but there are a great number of them here ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
t 58 I
and they seem to us to be, some of them at least, of relatively b
2 little advantage, particularly balanced against the cost in 3
staff resources.
('
4 MR. SHAPAR:
But the present rule does say as far as e
5 the staff is concerned that the interrogatories agains t the
!l 6
staff are only when it is necessary to a proper decision and the R
6, 7
information is not obtainable elsewhere.
K 8
8 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Yes, I appreciate that.
dd 9
MR. BICKWIT:
There is no doubt that if you have a i
h 10 limit and say you can only go beyond it under certain El 11 circumstances, even if it is precisely the circumstances that are k
j 12 in the present rule, it is going to be much more rare that the
(
5 j-13
. limit is exceeded than if you have no limit whatever.
Li l
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It sounds to me like its big value 2
15 is that it provides a considerable incentive for the f
16 practitioners to sharpen the questions in the first instance.
W 6
17 Now, they may need more than 50.
N M
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think sharpen may be the O
19 wrong word.
It may be very much the reverse.
gn 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, at least think about it.
I 21 will tell you what it will give people pause about.
It will give 22 people pause about simply clipping out from the filing in some 23, previous case 300 contentions that were made'on a boiling water 24 reactor and applying them to this one because it is a boiling 25 '
water reactor.
That in itself would be of value in terms of the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
Y 59 I
staff's problems in dealing with the volune of material.
~
2 Now, what does seem to me to be a head-scratcher is 3
that as we look at the things, and the reason I want to look at 4
the times lines and understand them better is, it begins to smell
=
5 as though this question of staff resource may be, if there is an Hl 6
incentive to limit, it may be that rather than time.
R 7
Now, if that is the fact, why, I would kind of like to Xl 8
understand that better and see why, and that is one of the d
ci 9
reasons I would like to see.these two things worked out in a 2
h 10 somewhat clearer presentation for me and talk about them 3l 11 Tuesday.
U j
12 We may very well end up where you are going.
It is 5
~
j-13 pos sib le.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There is a variant of that, too, 2
15 in which the Commission says that 'we expect the board to limit 5
y 16 the number of interrogatories, but leave it to the board as to w
g 17 what the suitable limitation is per proceeding.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Or could indicate a guideline k
19 number in the policy statement which wouldn't be binding, but it R
20 would only be a guideline number, just the way the schedule would 21 be.
But I think there still is also the possible option that we 22 might decide that it is worth writing a rule, a Part 2 type rule.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am certainly in favor of the 24 approach you take in limiting the interrogatory and am interested 25 ;
in seeing what the group comes up with.
I am very interested in ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
60 1
getting feedback on Tony's discussion with the board members on
{"s 2
these issues across that whole spectrum of que'stions that have 3
b een asked.
But I would like to say, as I keep on trying to say,
(
4 for myself, at least, I am very skeptical about fine tuned
=
5 schedules, particularly when they start getting down to three and h
3 6
four and.five day periods.
And the value I think it would bring R
7 is it is another step in trying to tighten up and make a s
I 8
coherent, rational framework for the process.
O d
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, it does that, John, and it i
h 10 has another use in the system.
When we get through with this 3
~
g 11 effort, get over the current surge of meetings, then whether the 3
y 12 Commission agrees and publishes a guideline, sort of prototypical 5
13 schedule, or whether we don't, I am going to ask the ad hoc l
14 group, and in particular put Tony in charge of it this time, to C
15 sit down and do a prototype schedule which the staff is then 5
g 16 going to have to use to schedule its work for those out year w
g 17 cases.
So that, you know, never mind if we show it to boards, n
M 18 the staff has to have some basis on which to schedule its work,
=
19 and they have to know what the predicted hearing is in a case H
20 which is far enough down the.line so that the particular 21 features of the case haven't become distinct and you have a 22 unique schedule for it.
23 So, it has that purpose, very important purpose in 24 addition to trying to provide some guidance.
25 Okay.
Now, this meeting was scheduled for an hour and a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
61 I
half.
We have managed that in good shape.
But I don't want to s
2 go away from this subject just yet.
3 Could I ask Commissioners. to search around in 4
their papers and find their draft licensing policy statements,
~'
=
5 and in particular we have had a ~IV proposed by Commissioner 39 3
6 Gilinsky.
I made a major change in it, and Commissioner 7
Bradford has made even more significant changes.
X g
8 I would like to sample opinion up and down the table d
~
o
-9
. as to :whether. this is a.. washable proposition.
h 10 Since you were the last commenter, why, in the form in E
{
11 which I.am looking at it, why, you are committed.
?
y 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
/
3 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now let's back up ' the line.
Vic.
3 14 COMMISSIONER,GILINSKY:
Well, let's see.
Peter
$o 15 changed the meaning of the first sentence in paragraph two.
j 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think paragraph one is good and a
p 17 everybody understands.
John?
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Paragraph one is fine.
5 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Paragraph one has that little R
20 editorial thing in it, it stands.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The way I had it, it was a 22 comment on the present situation, and the way Peter has it, it is 23 a prediction.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
For better or for worse, the 25 f present operating license situation is a product of the licensing ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
d' l
62 I
process as it stood, and these issues weren't, in fact, raised I'
2 and resolved at the CP stage, and there is no way we can say 3
about the present proceedings, that they shouldn't have the
{
'?
4 issues in them that they do.
=
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Actually, the way I meant it E
6 is not as an observation on the present, but on this system of a
f7 licensing, and if you set it up in a reasonable way the 8
operating license proceedings wouldn't have a burden that they dd 9
now do.
You might say have.to.
i h
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
I started to put the E
E word ideal or something in it and where, in fact, I put future.
ji d
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That is really what I meant, E
(
b and I really would prefer to leave it that way, rather than make 13 5
~
E 14 any predictions which depend on changes we haven't put in place, w
2 15 particularly since we are saying we need changes in the way U
J 16 industry operates.
N g
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Vic, I guess my only question 18 with the paragraph is, are you speaking to the boards in this b
19 paragraph?
k 20 COMMISSIONER OILINSKY:
No.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
To the world.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
A general comment.
23,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
To try to nudge things in a 24 direction that 25 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Okay.
I j ust want to make it I
'l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
a' 63 I
clear that it is not something you are expecting the boards to Q.
~
2 do something on.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No.
(~ b 4
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't mind changing future to
~
=
5 ideal and going back to your language, except I think I would
!l 6
say that ours do now, rather than that they do now.
What I am R
v g
7 trying to get away from is the suggestion from us to the boards M
8 that they ought to be throwing the issues out.
d
.d 9
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No, that is not what I meant.
!g 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
As a final matter, the Commission E
{
11 observes that in more ideal circumstances, or something like 5
12 that, the operating license should not bear the burden of 13 issues they do now, or would not bear.
How would that be?
Peter?
l 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would get rid of it.
I don't 2
15 think I would say more ideal.
I would 'j ust say, in ideal 5
i 16 circumstances operating license proceedings should not bear the j
e 17 burden of issues that ours do now.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't have any problem with that.
E 19 John, how does that strike you?
k I
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARhK.
Fine.
t 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't have any problem with l
l
(,
22 Peter's finall add-on.
How about you?
l l
23,
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That is fine.
l 25,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Patch this on as IV.
i o
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 64 I
Let's see, it.goes in after L and before the
,o 2
Commission, Sam Chilk.
3 After listening to all of you on the schedules, I
(
4
.,hought perhaps a certain specificity in direction might not be
=
5 out of place.
5l 6
Since we are all in such a great mood here, I want to R
0, 7
do one more thing in the draft policy statement.
With regard to 3
j 8
J, sua
.a raising of issues by boards, taking into account dd 9
the broad range of circumstances, I suggest we strike J and h
10 advance the other clauses.
You had it struck there at one point, II I think.
I don't know what we would say abo'at that which would uj 12 garner a majority, and I just propose not to fool around with it.
S 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There goes Victor's and my own 3u l
14 effort to expedite things, but all right.
15 MR. BICKWIT:
That doesn't foreclose a rulemaking.
It gj 16 simply takes it out of this policy. statement.
as 6
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is really the point.
I h
13 take it you are not dropping further discussion of sua sponte, E
19 or were you, as a subj ect for, Commission attention?
But you are g
20 just trying to get a policy statement out.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Certainly not.
It is just that it 22 seems to me that from the policy statement standpoint that the 23 value of getting the policy statement out is sufficient that it j
i 24 is not worth our wrangling to see if there is some particular 25 l finely tuned set of 103 words we could all stand on, each with his j
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
o*
65 o
1 own interpretation.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I agree.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Now, what that does with regard to 4
the policy statement I will then declare is to bring us down only
=
5 to a question of what we want to say about time and a prototype bl 6
schedule under A, and coupled wth that, and depending on how R
R 7
that goes, whether we want to say anything more or less or N
l 8
different about discovery.
dd 9
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Right.
i h
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And those, then, mat *.ers await some 3l 11 more haggling over the two time lines next Tuesday, and maybe we 12 can close in then or soon after.
13 I thank you all very much.
l 14 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 4: 05 p. m.)
2 15 a
((
16 o(
17 h
18 E
19 R
20 21 22 23,
24 25 '
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6 e
~
(-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
Thi,s,is to certify that the attached proceedings before the r,
^
NUCLEAR REGUIMORY CCM4ISSION s
s<
in the matter of: Discussion of Pavised Licensing Procedures Date of Proceeding : 'nnrsday, May 7,1981 Docket Number:
P1aee of'Proeeading: Poem 1130, 1717 H St., N.W., Washincton, D.C.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript,
thereof for the file of the Commission.,
l Marilynn M. Nations Official Reporter (Type ~d)
' 1.
Official Reporter (Signature) t D
i I
t I
.A
i I( ((
k
(
(((l
((
((h_h(([h((! f(h f(('((I((Idited't0<0c0 21 E-TRANSMITTAL TO:
S Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips I
d O
The Public Document Room g
DATE:
May 11, 1981__
1:
EO Attached is a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting document /s/.
These are available for placement in the Document Control System so they will appear on the Public Document Room Accession List.
Any document not
- P stampted original should be checked for possible prior entry into the system.
p F@@
1.
Transcript of Discussion of Revised Licensing Procedures, May 7, 1981.
(1 cy)
P Memo from Leonard Bickwit to the Commissioners a.
dated May 7, 1981, subject:
Limiting Number of Interrogatories Filed.
(1 cy) g
'=6 E
S gh ja rown Operations Branch 2m ug Office of the Secretary
=
asg 55
< ~r
\\\\
a9 :
r
%,Nispour1981w ;E n a G
t
' < 'Z p
r=
a R
imwamemummwaymmmnmwnwryer&
m;s
=;
_,