ML19350A873
| ML19350A873 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/05/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350A874 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8103170309 | |
| Download: ML19350A873 (74) | |
Text
_
NUCI. EAR REGULATOR'? COMMISSION c
i COMMISSION MEETING In h.%1 car of:
DISCUSSION OF REVISED LICENSIMG PROCEDURES
- f. N -
i~
m.
March 5, 1981 pgggg, 1 - 71 l
Ar; Uashincrton, D. C.
l 1
e e
f
,~c
.d ib 8
l p MAR 0.91981
$1 l
vis, mien g an l
9 l
c,,
/
1 m
F - Q @ M.T O
.MDEMT l G 400 virgisia Ave., S.*4. ~4=*n h g.=n, D. C.
20024 1
Talachcna: (202) 554-2345 I
8103170 309
)
e DISCADfEZ (l
This 1s as mast"*/d=1==ansc:::1pc ci a. saeci:25 of :he lInd, ad.
Stacas N-T-Zagulatory Commission heli om March 5, 1981 is the w==da='s officas: ac 1717 I Sc=sec, 3. W., Washing:nn, I
DC Tha zoeting-ass oper ce public, at endanca and obserracion i
Th:f.s ~*=c has. =nc bees rayM*, cer=ac=ad,. or =dt-% and.
in asy rane=4n **=e*w' =-4==
Tha
" '.-r is *** = d =; salaI7 for ganaral.1:sformationa.L.
purposes. Aa, providad, hr 10 CZr. 9.103, i= is not part of -de hr or dh recort. of >= d =t=2 of :he astrars discussed.
7-cW== of oaM-ize this==ansc=1ge da sac sac====*17 refIace " 4d decazminations or h=1* =#. No ;rt - ddi or ochar paper aar be filed. taints. che w==d = 1: any procaeding as -da.
====t-of or add =assed. car any stacamanc or argument con *=d--A haw ~. azcape as thm w==d s may author:Ua.
l
(,
- g 9
./
9 9
m i
I G
9 1
J e
6
--.___,---,y-
c NATIONS:1f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA m
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0!ctISSION 2
ea w (m
DISCUSSION 0F REVISED LICENSING PROCEDURES 4
5 e
I
'q 6
Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
7 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
]
8-Washington, D.C.
N9 Thursday, March 5, 1981 i
h 10 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m.,
E I
11 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman, presiding.
I d
12 PRESENT:,
3
(,)
ig JOSEPH ff. HENDRIE, Chairman E
l 14 VICTOR GILINSKY,. Commissioner 5
PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 2
15 Te JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 16 g
17 ALSO PRESE:IT:
f LEONARD BICKWIT, General Counsel g
18
=
SAMUEL J.
CHILK, Secretary 5
WILLIAM J. DIRCKS, Executive Director, Operations j9
]
HOWARD SHAPAR 20 ALAN S. ROSENTHAL TONY P. COTTER, Chief Admin. Judge, ASL Board Panel EDWARD J. HANRAHAN, Director, Policy Evaluation 21 MARTIN MALSCH Q
22 AL KENNEKE HAROLD DENTON 23,
KEVIN CORNELL MR. CASE V
24 l l
25 ;
i f
I Al NFD4EAN DFAADTING mMD AMY IMP
2 I
.F. E E E E E E l. E E E s
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Could we come to order, please.
3 The Commission meets this afternoon to resume its 4
discussion of the revised licensing procedures.
5 For those of you who werr not here this morning, you I$&
will have heard that we got the jump on you.
The Commission
~n T
is already well preped to move ahead with' this discussion.
]
I think we essentially concluded this morning d.d 9
working from the OPE /0GC paper, Section B, concluded discussion i
h 10 on the immediate effectiveness aspects.
We came to a point E{
IT where I think we agreed that one of two courses would follow, n
p II one of which. I asaes.' to be worth two months on the standard l
1 schedule and the other worth three mcnths, so that we can count g
17
=
l 14 a gain.
I am not sure whether it is plus two or minus two, 1E 15 but two months off of that.
E g'.
16 I would like to move to the other items in the i
w i
IT hearing process, recogni:ing that we do need to find a way to E
l hi 18 squeeze down the total time in the average case that the i
5 19 hearing process consumes.
l I
20 Len, do you-want te assist us in assaulting these l
21 items, itens 5, 6, et cetera?
We had made some start the (j
22 last time.
Let's recap.
l 23 !
MR. BTCKWIT:
As I reca1I, you were in the middle 24 {( of items 5 and 6.
The basic issues before the Commission l
25!
were what should be the number of days they would want to 1
s 3
I shoot for as a goal between the filing of the SSER and the 2
convening of the hearing and secondly, were there specific 3
discovery mechanisms that could be used to control discovery.
4 On the first of those issues, Tony has come up with
=
5 a paper which puts forward five months as a goal.
You might 5
j 6
want to take it from there.
3 R
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:.
We asked Mr. Cotter to provide K
j 8
some draft language with the view that these matters of trying dd 7
to establish some-guideline times between the issuance of z
h 10 the staff's supplementary safety evaluation report and the E
{
11 start of evidentiary hearings, as well as discovery-procedures, E
y 11 that while we recogni:ed it was really not practical to set 3g 13 f ron clad requirements because as soon as we do, there will
=
l 14 immediately be a case in which they are clearly inappropriate,.
7 2
15 nevertheless, it is not inappropriate to establish some g
16 guideline values and for the Commission to express its high e
17 interest in all members of the Agency doing their utmost to B
18 conform. to those guidelines.
h 1
19 We are talking' about framing some guidelines that 20' would be. included in a policy statement on licensing.
l 21 Tony, with that background, do you want to outline
(_j 22 your draft?
I just received it so I have not had a chance to 23 read it.
The first thing you will have to do is tell me
(-
24 what page on the new draft I turn to and then tell me what t
25 l you have here.
Atnrosnumennemun enumiuvaue
j 4
I 1
MR. COTTER:
The subject of discovery is addressed j
l 2
on page four.
The discussion says in essence or directs the 3
Boards to manage discovery from the outset, not merely for
\\
p 4
that period of time between the issuance of the final
[
=
5 supplement to the SER and the commencement of a hearing.
I 6
Because there is so much variation in the number 7
and possible kinds of issues that might appear in an SER NT g
8-supplement, I have not attempted to try to pick out differences dd 9
in management process of' discovery.
l t
h 10 What this does is direct the Boards to become actively i
z
_j 11 involved in all phases of discovery and to set dates for the y
11 completion of discovery in consultation with the parties.
The
(
13 forut of that consultation is essentially left to the discretion
[
14 of the Boards.
Some of the things that are identified as ways D
2 15 of consulting are telephone conferences or written reports s
l f
16 or actual on the record conferences.
I ad
(
17 C0!NISSIONER AHEARNEr Since I have been reading 5
W 18 some of the information generated by people who attend these J
=
meetings, there apparently is a 5elief that there is confusion l
19~
R l
20' on what the purpose of discovery is.
21 Could you give me a summary of what you see the 1
b 22.
purpose of discovery being, just in case I have missed the 23 purpose.
l l
24 MR. COTTER:
The general purpose of discovery is for u
25 all parties to disclose all the information in their possession a s nemenw memnaviue enMm AMV IMP
5 1
to other parties in the proceeding which bears on the issues 2
to be decided, so that those issues can be narrow and the 3
evidence can be confined to the relevant and the actual n
(
4 hearing itself can thereby be shortened in duration.
=
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The. purpose is to focus so 5{
that the actual hearing time and tS' refore the actual developed.
e 7
record will be concise?
X f
g-E MR COTTER:
Yes_
dd 9-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is related and fo~ mal-r i
h la
~ discovery follows from admitted. contentions, is that correct?
E
{
11 MR COTTER:
Yes.
E j
II COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Thank you.
k 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Are there any comments?
Len?
l 14 MR. BICKWIT:
One issue you have to focus on is E
15-whether this kind of phrasing as to the various mechanisms, j
16 the various discover mechanisms that could be used is the e
g 17 kind of thing the Commission wants to go with or whether the ik 18 Commission has-in mind tighter instructions to the Boards,
E 19~
different kinds of mechanisms.
20 One mechanism that I do not see here is one that 21 has been used by Ivan Smith in TMI I, which is to start the
(,)
22 discovery process with something that is so informal that it 23 would not be called discovery.
It is simply an informal gathering of all the parties, where they all exchange their 24 us 25 '
views and acquaint themselves to the extent possible with the i
t m n.mm
...m
,mm
(
g 1
various positions.
It is only after that is finished that the i
formal discovery process begins, and that is designed to be a 3
very short exercise.
4 MR. COTTER:
I believe that is covered in Section C.
+
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There is also a comment under I
6,
" discovery," in virtually all instances,. individual Boards 7 l' should. schedule an initial conference with the parties to set E
X g
8
- a. general discovery schedule immediately after contentions cid 9
have been submitted.
That is. not exactly what you are talking
$g 10 about but it could. serve the same purpose.
g 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Section C says the Board y
12.
should not become involved.
Why is that?
E Cm MR COTTER::
To maintain freedom of communications.
J 13 l
14 among. the parties, since there are such a sufficient number of 2
15 opportunities for formal,. on the record communications 5
-f 16 otherwise provided in the discovery process, the settlement 2
17 conference and the pre-hearing conferences-18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You did not mean not
?
i.
17 participating. in. at least getting the parties together, you 20 meant not trying to strike a net.stiation element?
' 21 i MR. COTTER:
In the negotiation section,. I meant 22 the Boards should not be present.
23,
MR. BICKWIT: That is different from what Ivan Smith i
24 is doing.
25l MR. COTTER:
It is specifically what he is doing.
l 3
k
7 1
That is where it came from.
~'
2 CHAIRMAN IIENDRIE:
We are talking about two different 3
thiggs.
When Tony talks about negotiations in his draft
(,)
4 policy statement,. he is talking about the proposition that
=
5 the applicant and one or more of the intervening parties or 5$6 the. staff and everybody else get off in a. corner and see if' 7'
they can come to some agreements on one or another of the X
j E
contentions and simply stipulate certain things and then they dd F
go to the Board and. say, this is what we have agreed on.
i h
10:
What you are saying is the Boar & ought not be in the E{
11 middle of those deal making propositions, which are perfectly
(
IT legitimate,. proper ani much to be encouraged.
(
3g 13 MRL COTTERt That is exactly correct.
s n
[
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What Len is talking about with
$l 15 Ivan Smith on discovery is before you launch on the discovery, a
f 16 get the parties-together and get as clear as possible with e
i 17 everybody present on where people are going and the principal 5
I&
issues and out of thar, try to provide a framework in which
=#
19 schcJuling of discovery can be~ made as compact as possible R
2G and still da reasonable justice to all the parties' interests.
21 Those are rather different things.
I think the l
22 latter is covered by the third paragraph or the second full
([)
23 ;
paragraph on page five of the draft.
s) 24 MR. BICKWIT:
My own view is it is going to be very 15 i diffictit for the Commission to give instructions on discovery g
g that go beyond what Tony has proposed, that he has all the I
I mechanisms in here and the best you can do is sanction them into 3
some kind of policy statement; 4
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
By the Commission reiterating
=
5 these things, add its immediate and current weight to good I$&
management of this element of the hearing process.
I think
~n 7
it would' be very difficult to frame more binding requirements
'n
[
in a, way that did not end. up making more trouble than it saved.
cii 9
MR COTTER-I think that is correct.
I think it Y$
10 is extremely difficult to try and address the subject of
.E
{
11 discovery in view of' the range of situations and needs for a
y 12 discovery that you are going-to run into; this is a. problem 5~
,()
13-that is-quite common. to litigation today.
Tlie basic message d
14 in here is tha.: the Boards should. manage it and make sure 7
15 they are doing. it. and make sure it is scheduled.
/ 16 That exercise has not been that strenuously followed air li 17 to date,with.some exceptions.
Y E
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIEr-John?
E 19 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
On page six, the top of the 20 page, when you talk about the sanctions, I am pu:. led why you 21 do not just say "such sanctions include..." and why you say 22 "in extreme cases, such sanctions may include..."
It almost C
23 !
sounds like you are saying that the failure to comply is 24 subject to sanctions but here are the things that are 25 l ultra extreme that you would not have your Boards consider
)
J ALDERSON_REPORTINGXQMPANY, INC.
]
g a
f i
1 in general.
2 I would have thought what you would be saying is 3-failure to comply is subject to sanctions and here is a list 4
of the sanctions.
=
5 MR. COTTER:
I was trying to' get some flavor of Il 6.
the usual practice in this field.
I believe this accurately R
R 7
states that practice.
~
K j
8 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There are lesser sanctions, are dd 9
there not?
Icg 10 MR COTTER:
Yes.
El 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If the Board feels one party w
y II or another either br asking or answering is going beyond b
13 some reasonable position, it can throw out questions or require l
14 answers or whatever_
E 15 MR_ COTTER:
That is right.
These sanctions which Te l
g 16 are identified on page sir are extreme sanctions in that they w
g 17 have the potential to essentially deny a person's right to l
5 l
18 participate-in the proceeding in whole or' in part.
That is E
19 a severe sanction.
20 MR. BICKNIT:
It is a separate question that you 21 were also focused on last time as to what kind of goal you (j
22 want to set for the entire pre-hearing proceeding.
23,
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Before you get to that, r ~
I guess I would have preferred you to say "such sanctions 24 25 include..." and you mention the lesser sanctions as well as j
j t
10 i
the more serious...The way it is written it almost sounds like 1
you are saying, there are these others, but it is an enormous 2
threshold to reach there.
,o 4
CHAIR! FAN HENDRIE: That would be a. tuning of the policy
=
5 statement which you will keep in mind for when we settle down k
i
{
f- {
and see if we-can do it T',
R 7
We have-heard from that end of the table at some g
g.
length.
I would like to hear from this side.
Alan, what dd 7
is your comment on this discovery section?
I er7 10 MR. ROSENTHAL:.
I have just received Tony's paper iE{
11 as well.
t y
12; CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You have had more time to read it CJ p 13' than I did before r started making remarks _
m l
14 MR. ROSENTHAL:
I an in basic agreement with this N
2 15 paper insofar as it deals with discovery.
I strongly endorse "s-g 16 the notion that the guidance has to be in fairly broad terms.
as g
17 There are enough areas from case to case that any
- z lii 18 specific guidance would be-essentially worthless.
5 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We would spend a lot of time 20 making exceptions.
21 MR. ROSENTHAL:
I think this is a good statement.
l 22 If taken to heart, it could have tangible benefits.
fC I
23!
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Howard?
24 l MR. SHAPAR:
I have a different perspective.
I do u
l l
25,
not think the discussion up to now has portrayed to the I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMEANYJNC.
11 j
Commission the full range of options they really have in this area.
I think the statement is good in the sense that it urges 2
the Boards to use tools that have been available to them.
I 3
(3 4
think Tony is right in saying that the full panoply of the j
=
5 Boari"s authority in the discovery area has not been used 3$g and should be used.
a 7
I think this statement is a good first step in that X
direction.
However, I think one has to look at the legal
[
8 d4 9
situationwsith respect to discovery and how it is used in i
h 10 other places to give the Commission a full idea of the range t
g it of options ir really has in front of it.
it I think one has to understand from a legal standpoint I
d 11 E
(j that the APA doc 7 not require any discovery.
Discovery is is E
E 14 something optional.
I think it is beneficial.
I think I
w.
1 Cy 15 discovery is something that could be very useful in many ways.
i One starts-with the idea that it is not legally 16 ad 17 required.
One can shape the manner in which discovery is used I
E g-ig to fit the situation.
I do not think this has been brought out r
19 i clearly up.to-now.
k I think one of the keys here is the fact that 20 21 discovery is going along from the very beginning of the
[ 'l 22,
process; discovery is taking place long before the various s-23 staff documents are available.
Months of informal or formal O
24 discovery have gone on.
One of the key questions that has not been mentioned 25 ALDERSOM REPORTING COD @N1W WC-
12 1
up to now is whether and under what circumstances discovery 1
1 should be re-opened because a staff document is available.
t 3
There the Commission has lots cf options.
The Commission can
(,)
i 4
fabricate a standard.
It can say discovery will not be 5
re-opened unless there is severe prejudice to a party or I
i if the Commissiort does not like that standard, it can formulate E
7 a different standard.
K To me that is the real question facing the cid 9'
Commission,. not whether or not it tells the Board to use mi h
10' the weapons available-to-it in the discovery area, but what El 11 standard.:should be used, if any, with respect to re-opening ir j
12 discovery that has been going on for months.
5.
()
L 13 The staff document that is available can provide new l
14 information.
One could reasonably argue that because there 2
15 is new information, that the parties ought to have a further E
f 16 chance at discovery One can also argue that there is no
- n 17 new factual information in the staff document; it is merely E
Ri la the conclusion of one party.-
Why should there be further
=R 1T discovery?
y n
20 All the parties have the right to crcrss examine 21 in the hearing The APA guarantees that.
It does not h
22 guarantee discovery.
23,
I think those are the full dimensions of the problem.
b 24 I think the key to it is-when discovery has been going on 25 l for months, as to whether it should be re-opened, what standards ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
13 l
1 should he used when the staff document becomes available.
This
'/
2 is a 1ey to the time savings.
Depending how you go on that 3
issue means you have months of discovery or if you want to
'b 4
go to the other end of spectrum,. you have no disc-ery and 5
the hearing can start in thirty days after the staff document.
=
3a
{
In fact, that has been done. before.
I am not urging it.
I
~n 8.
7 am merely pointing out it is-an option that is in front of you.
Kj.
8-What you are talking about is thirty days from the d
P start of the hearing. or three months or five months or seven zO E
10 months, depending on how you come out on that standard for E
{
11 re-opening discovery.
E I
11 I am not urging any particular course of action O4 13-before the Commiss-ion.
I am trying to portray for.the 14-Commission what options are available to it.
Si E
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Procedural matter; we are E
d 16 sitting. here discussing at some length a memo that Tony has I
in l
l ti 17 given us.
This is not available.-
It appears to me we ought E
[
IE to attempt tor make-it available.
E 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The prior Cotter memoranda were 22 available?
(
21 MR. CHIElt:
No.
l 22 MR. COTTER:
I have no feelings about it one way t
23 or another.
It seems to me like it was a working paper for
[
p i
l V
24 cc,nsideration.
l 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You do not have any objection, 4
i i
JNuBriWeernFr5Er5mr6wynasemns? w
14 1
you wanted the Commission to decide?
,3 MR. COTTER:
Yes.
2 3
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Any inclinations on this side of O
4 the table?
=
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:.
It is fine with me.
5g&
MR. SHAPAR:
Mr. Chairman, I neglected to mention k7 one important point, and that is to question the premise T
~
l l
8-on which discovery traditionally rests, and that is whether dd 9
in fact as a matter of history and experience that discovery
{
i h
10 has indeei shortened the hearing time.
E i
11 r think the perceptions will vary.
d 12 MR. COTTER:
Every adjudicatory system that I know z
O l i2 of st111. uses it R
1 14 MR..SHAPAR:
That is not the-point.
I am not l
I
=
E 15 suggesting anything different.
I am just saying the extent a=
16 to which it has indeed fulfilled its intended purpose in our w
l d
g 17 own particular situation.
5 18 COMlfISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are you questioning whether E
19 it has reduced the number of days that would otherwise be E-a 20 devoted to hearings or whether the hearing process as a whole 21-has been reduced by discovery?
I 22 MR. SHAPAR:
I do not think you can refine it in
(])
23 the first example you gave.
All you can really do is talk
()
24 to people and find out whether or not discovery has been used 25 in such a way that it has indeed been reflected in the way the i
Al MFREEAN DFpnDTING rnMP ANY INF
15 i
f I
cross examinatiert is conducted at the hearing.
I have =y own 2-feeling which I just as soon not surf ace.
r i
3 If you are interested in that question and it is v
4 really the key question, I think you should ask various people g
5 what their answer would be to that question.
I think it is a
n 3
something --
K R_
T COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:.
Varicus pecple, except yout K
I j
8' (LAUetHR.)
d 9
MR. SHAPAR:
If I an asked, I will always do my duty E.
10 by the Commission _
z
}
11 MR. COTTER:
I think the request in essence asks the j
11 Commission to re-invent the litigative wheel.
13 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
It is not just to enjoy a v
E l
T4 time saving.
There is also a questiort as to whether discove:9e 1
,E 15 improves the quality of the proceeding as =uch or more than a
f 16 trying to extract the same 'information on cross examination.
s 17 MR. ROSENTHAL:
I would think that the questions az.
5 18 that Howard raises particularly the question of re-opening T-7 19 discovery after additional staff documents have been filed a
20 really come within the ambit of this paper, if in point of 21 fact the additional staff documents do not bring to light 22 1 any additional facts, that all it reflects is a staff opinion 23 which as Howard says can be ventilated during the hearing m
v 24 itself and I would expect the Licensing Board would act 25 '
accordingly.
ALDERSON REPORTING COZPONY, EC.
16 i
1 My problem is I do not think you can generalize 1
1 with regard to the content or effect of the additional staff 3
documents any more than you can generalize as to any other
~
4 part of this process.
5 MR. SHAPAR:
I think one should set a standard for
=
b
{'
&4 re-opening.
T MR. COTTER:
The standard for discovery, it seems to Xl 8
me, should be consistent.
Is it necessary to exchange 4a F
information to shorten the hearing and whether it is g
10 infonnation that occurred early-in the game or later in the E
{
11 game, it is still new information.
Is it necessary to have a
y 11 a period of discovery to ultimately shorten the process?
E E3 4
V
[ 13.
do not see any difference.
(
14 MR. SHAPAR::
That means there is no balance here E
15 at all.
The other considerations that are confronting the
~
g 16 Commission at this very.date do not have to be thrown in l
e d
IT the equation.
U 18 MR. DENTON: Speaking from my perspective, seldom 5
17 d'o L see that we gain very much because of an unique 20 circumstance.
We discover the applicant on the record and 21 it is all open and all available.
Usually there is very little.
()
22 We would be ready to go to hearing in-five days.
All we want 23 to know is who the other parties are.
(_)
24 It.is not a case where everyone is going in blind i
25 as to what the various positions are, by and large.
I think l
L ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYMC,
17 1
that is what makes it a.little bit different.
I do not see 2
discovery as being particularly useful to the staff during 3
this period..
4
!R. COTTERr It probably is not.
You are the one 5
who has the information. to be discovered.
3n
{
6r MR. DENTON:
All the information we have is in the 7,
7 public document room, standard ~ review plans and NUREG's.
Once Xg 8
again,. it is an unique setting.
It seems to me like when we dd 9-rely on'all the information that comes in that is publically
$g 16 available, all our review. techniques are publically available, E
j 11 there-is seldom anything that is not directly accessible by '
a p 11 Looking, in the file for-that application.
E i
Cs
$ 13'
_C0194ISSIONER. GILINSKY:
I suppose what is happening l
14 is you are asking not so. much tcr review information as to D
E. 15 identify information.
- =
g 16.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Identify and repeat information.
+
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is that right?
E.
k 18-MR. MALSCH:
Yes,. I think the typical discovery A
l 19 as to staff is, sucIt things. as list all documents and 20 references upon which yotr rely-to reach your conclusion 21 that chapter such and such is okay.
C; 22 When the document request is filed and the staff has 23,
not done a continuous evaluation, the answer it gets back from V
24 discovery is, we do not know, we-will let you know when the 25 SER Supplement is issued.
When the SER Supplement is issued, i
I
18 il that is when you need it for discovery.
All these unanswered questions have to come in.
Until that document is issued, the y
staff would not know how to answer the question of which 3
O' documents did you rely upon in reaching your conclusion?
~
4
.There-is always new information with the issuance y
5 of the SER Supplement,, information which the staff relied on j
6 f
- 7. l to reach. it's conclusions.
THat is not obvious from just going fg down to the PDR' andi reading all the documents in the-docket.
T1b $9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
After hearing from our i
,C.
Principal lawyers on this issue, Len, would you care to add 10 u
z_{
11 anything?
it MR. BICKWIT:
My-knowledge in this araa is basically g jg
?
k_).
$ jg-theorectical E
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That might put a sufficient E
14 a
M veneer on.the discussion.
2 15 MR. BICKWIT:
The thesis-that I have read take the 16 it.
ad jp-position that you save time with discovery.
When you read b
18 the Ribicoff study, one of their central points is the way E
to cut down. on. the-delay associated with the adjudicatory I
j9 hearing process is to have-more discovery, that the big l
20 Problem is getting everybody together in one place and having 21 a hearing and anything you can do to cut that down ought fh to 22 be done and this is one of the standard streamlining techniques.
23,
t s
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The theory from your
(
24 description is in the absence of discovery, the hearing itself l
25 i
OLDERSON REP ORTRNGMP/XMPECr
19 I
would take a long time.
2 MR. BICKWIT:
That is right.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Therefore, the utilization of 4
discovery is a willing expansion of the time prior to the
=
5' hearing with the-aim of cutting the time of hearing with the 5
{'
theory that sum. total is still going-to be less?
l g
8 7
MR. BICKWIT':
That is the theory.-
As I said, I do X
[.
E not have the practical application e1.d 9
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Five months is a lot of' hearing; g 10' if you ss.id. the. discovery will end 60 days af ter the issuance 4
{
II of the basic safety evaluation report and will not be z.
I 11 re-opened. for the supplementary reports that inevitably fo110w
('
2i lT MRc BICKWIT:
Mr_ Chairman, a five month period is
[
T4 not all discovery..
In fact, a.very small amount of it is 1
E 15-designed to be-discovery because as we pointed out last time, d
16 you are going to have to have at least a substantial amount e
d IT !
of time for stimmary, disposition motions and answers and 1
[
18' Board rulings and. pre-filing of testimony.
it 19' MR MALSCK:
I have been involved in heavily 20 contested. NRC licensisg pro'ceeding6 hotli'with:ng discovery 21 before the hearing and. with discovery before the hearing.
In C
21 heavily contested cases which I was involved in, the hearings 23 !
in the cases with discovery tended to be kind cf long and l
24 drawn out affairs but the hearings without discovery tended l
25i to be absolute disasters.
ALD_ERSON REP _ORTIEdG_COZPANI7, OPAC, j
I 20 1
MR. SHAPAR:
It is not a? question, of' discovery
.s I
~.
1 and no discovery.
It is a question of when discovery is 3
let off.
\\,
4 C0hMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could you. explain what you
=
5 meant by " disaster?
5k&
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think he is probably going
~a R
7 to use a common definition.
I{
E MR. MALSCH:
Let's suppose-there is an issue in a c.ii 9
cas e --
d 10 COMMISSIONER'AHEARNE:
You were referring to cases E
li you actually were involved. with?.
ir p
12' MR. MALSCH:
Yes.
I can.think of two cases which
@ T3 I thought were disasterous for lack of discovery.
One was (V
g a
14 the ECCS~ rulemaking hearing. and the other was Shoreham, 7
2 15 a construction permit proceeding.
E d
16 MR. BICKWIT: Why was there no discovery in Shoreham?
I as 17 MR MALSCH:
It was not allowed.
The general policy i
T 18 at that time was to not allow discovery and resist it at all E
19 costs. because it took too much: staff resources and bother b
20 to the staff.and it just was not worthwhile.
l 21 The difficulty was, let's suppose the issue was j C 22 effects of thermal effluent.
You could ask one hundred 23 l questions about the basis for the staff's conclusions in b
24 the FES, which in theory could be answered by staff witnesses 25 sitting in their offices and writing out answers.and
21 1
gathering the documents together.
That took a couple of staff 2
days maybe.
When those same questions got answered at the 3
hearing,-you had to bring the staff out, they had to travel
/
4 to the hearings, they lost days and they got on the witness e
5 stand and they said, which documents did you rely upon?
K 6
Inevitably-it turned out that some documents were ' missing a
N 7
and they had to go back, there had to be recesses to pick up additional documents _
dn 9
The parties did not have time to examine the basis i
h la for the staff conclusions and it just generally-turned out to E
g IT be a very poorly run hearing because of the lack of discovery.
m j
12 The parties just were not prepared to proceed in a straight
('
NI
~
=
II line fashion to a conclusion.
E l
14 MR. SHAPAR:
Mr. Chairman, I an acquainted with both 2
15 those cases.
In my opinion, discovery is not the.
in reason E
l f
16 for the long drawn our nature of those hearings.
There are e
tf 17 other reasons.
1 W
My feeling is it is a " pay me now or il 1
l 19 pay me later proposition; either you give-discovery of an l
20 adequate expanse of time to narrow down the length of time l
l 21 of the hearing itself or you greatly increase the length of 22 the hearing and greatly increase the length of time it takes
((J l
l 23 l to render a decision.
It is going to take twice as much time i
to put all the bits and pieces together of a record that has 24
.s l
25 ;
been not adequately prepared prior to the hearing.
OLDERSON REPORTIZG COSP/XW7, AfEC-
i z,
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I must say for myself, in view 2
of the practice, we have been allowing discovery in cases 1
now going back to about 1972.
That was approximately when 4
Part II was revised.
It seems to me to now contemplate e.
5 sa'ying, we have decided the whole thing was not worthwhile I(
and we are going to cut it out.. - - '
~
a-a T
nr the first place, we would have to do rulemaking K
l-and I expect there would be extensive argument.
r.i 9
For myself, I would be much.more inclined to look i
10 at including with. the draf t language that Tony has provided E
11' us on discovery, some comments which those who are familiar I
ir-(
11 with Board practice may regard as self-evident but maybe
(
5 l 11 in this. case as in numbers of others,. it is often useful for
=
l
[ 14 the Commission to restate the self-evident.
That.might l
7 I
l 15 include such things as pointing out that discovery in fact e
d 16 can and should go along as information is ' developed on the as 17 docket, as one comes-toward the closing days of the staff's E
{
IF review,. particularly once the ACRS meeting is about to E
19 occur and one-is getting close to what hopefully is the last g
20.
staff document supplement to follow the Committee meeting, 21 that the discovery remaining, the Boards ought to manage with
,V 22 some care.
23 l I would think a scandard that discovery after the 24 staff supplemental safety reports ought to be confined pretty 25 strictly to the material in those reports rather than it just maarmeuaTIMr: MMD AMY !Mr
23 1
being across the whole field at that very late date.
That 1
would seem to me to be unreasonable.
I MR. BICKNIT:.
By that time you have had six months (3
4 of pre-trial practice.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
By that time you have had. a lot of if i
6 time to scratch.around.
Furthermore,. parties will have had the a
7 basic safety evaluation report which is issued prior to the 8-ACRS meeting and have it in hand for several months.
d.d 9
MR. BICKWIT:
It does not sound unreasonable.
Let me i
h la just ask,. would that produce: any dramatic change in practice?
E
{ 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIEr In principle, I assume it is the E
j 12 practice.
In practice, it may not be the practice.
Restating n
E kJ 11 it as a proposition might be very 9seful.
[ 14 MR COTTER:
The message here in this proposal is 7
E 15 keep discovery down_ to an: absolute minimum, to a useful point E
g 16 on the supplement.
It seems-to me it is perfectly possible e
g 17 that the supplement might contain information which changed 5
Ni 18 assumptions that were made in. the earlier documents.
I do not 5
19
,know that..
2 20-That is why I am extremely loath to talk in terms of 21 minimums and try to state-it in terms of maximums with the h
22 understanding that the Boards are going to look to minimums 23 at that stage in the proceeding.
v 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Tony, the example you just that would still not fall outside of restrictive 25
- gave, m
24 1
to the information contained in the supplement.
A changed 2
assumption would be information contained in the supplement.
3 MR. COTTER:
Yes, what I am saying is the supplement
_s
~
'4 might affect the discovery which had gone on before it.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In an individual case, the Board 5
{
6 will have to judge that.
It seems to me some further discussion 7l' in the policy statement, pointing out that as one comes to the-R R
K]
time in the case when-the staff is issuing its final dd 9-supplementary safety evaluation reports, by that time, one
$g 10 ought to have been able-to narrow the field of discovery Ej IT substantially and what ought to remain as allowable is limited a
g 12 in fact to the material in those reports.
<^
E ks s
13 That does not offhand strike me as an unreasonable E
}
14 limitation.
I am not sure how much it gains.
If Boards are 2
15 not doing that, it. seems to me they ought to be doing it.
E f
16 MR. COTTER:
If this policy statement were issued e
i 17 i tomorrow, I believe the first application of it would be U
18 TMI related supplements.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Fine.
k i
20 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
New information.
21 MR. COTTER:
A great deal of new information.
y, 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
As I say, in an individual case, 23 the Board will have to shape the proposition if the supplement 24 comes out and says, we herewith confirm some earlier tentative 25 !
conclusions, then there may not be much there to discover.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
25 1
If it comes out and it is 400 pages and covers 2
everything in the case, then you have a pretty broad field.
3 MR. CASE:
Mr. Chairman, I would be so bold to
,s
(
4 suggest at the top of page five, the wrong standard is used 5
for the use of discovery.
It is suggested that abuse of 5
{
6 discovery would delay hearings.
7,.
7 I think you. are concerned with the Iength of the X
g a
hearing process,. not just the length of the hearing..
I think d
i 9
there is a fundamental difference here that ought to be i
h la addressed.
z_{
l'1 As to the-question.of whether or not discovery has E
12 shortened the hearing process, I think a look at statistics u
y
. II ani history would be instructive in this regard.
s
[
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The problem with looking at n
[ 15 statistics is yon have to try to make sure your statistics I
f 16 are on. the same set of items.
6 IT MR. CASEr I dare say you would find few, if any,
- x RI la hearings themselves that lasted five months.
If the discovery b
lasts 19 process, which is supposed to save overall hearing time, k
(
2E five months, as a minimum, it could only --
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is not a lot of this time 22 more than just discovery?
s, i
23 MR. COTTER:
We are not talking about five months 24 of discovery here.
We are talking about five months from the a
f 25 l issuance of the SSER to the convening of the hearing and L
26 1
inbetween you have the initiation of discovery; you have a 2
settlement conference; you have filing of motions for summary 3
disposition; you have decisions on motions for summary disposition.
When you get all that out of the way, then you 4
5 5
have a pre-hearing conference and then you are ready to go Ik6 into hearing.
7 MRi ROSENTHAL:
AncI the writing of testimony.
Xg a
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It would be interesting to sketch ci
=L 9
down a. reasonable sort of schedule.
$g in COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Len had that last time.
r_l 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Which did not include discovery.
in ci 12 If you then do exactly the same thing and tell me what it is r
13 without discovery,. then. I have some measure of what this final g
14 stage of discovery contributes to the five months or whatever
- g. 15 it is.
E 16 MR. BICKWIT:
Without discovery, it is 75 days.
-g e
17 MR. COTTERr Some of these things are simultaneous.
E hi ig Discovery can be simultaneous with the preparation of some E
19 kinds of pre-filed testimonies.
5 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE-He says 2.5 months _
The round 21-of discovery that starts with the filing of the SSER, the 1 Q 22 last SSER and then add 2.5 months.
23,
What are the instincts of experts as to that measure?
24 Esuspect Len's 2.5 months is rather tight.
That 25l had like 14 days to wrLte the testimony which people said, yes, l
Al MFDCM DFDADTIMt"l FAMD A MY f Mt"
27 1
that is great but you are not going to make it in most cases.
~
2 MR. BICKNIT:
My feeling in response to that comment 3
was the filing. of testimony could be in parellel with some of i
the summary disposition practices,. the writing of testimony.
4 5
MR. ROSENTHAL:
I would suspect most people would I
{
6 be rather loath. to embark upon the task of writing extensive R
7 testimony on an. issue that.is subject to a summary disposition K
j 8
motion.
cin 9
MR. BICKWIT:
Not all issues are subject to summary i
h 10 disposition. mo tions.
E g
11 MR. ROSENTHAL:
I am not suggesting the testimony a
^
y 12 has to wait iIt its entirety until every other '"i" has been (v1 4g 13 dotted and "t" has been. crossed.
I was merely suggesting
=
l 14 that the 14 days which I think is the period you provided D
E 15 for testimony, as to a lot of the testimony that would be E
g 16 filed,. is quite unrealistic.
as ll 17 I pointed out, among other things, that the staff n
5i la because of limited resources,. needed four months to prepare 5
19 their-Seabrook testimonv.
g 20 I MR. BICKWIT:
It will depend on the extent of the 21 summary disposition practice.
r.
Q 22 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Yes, there are a lot of variables.
23,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Len, how much in your draconian a
24 schedule did discovery contribute directly?
25 ;
MR. BICKNIT:
Twenty days, and that was regarded as I
-ccronTpzym m _ _
l 28 1
unrealistic.
n t "'
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What would be realistic?
Forty?
3 MR. BICKWIT:
As-1~said at the last meeting, if 4
the SER's were fragmented,c:. if you could get out portions e
5 of the SER and not wait until the last SSER for all of~ your h
{
6-i new facts and assumptions, I do not think thirty days is T,
il 7
unrealistic.
<T l
8-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There we ought to have some d
- i 9-statistics in the sense of how long has discovery taken.
$g 1(I HR SHAPAR:
I think one of the things the El 11 Commission is struggling with is how the process has actually n
(
12.
worked in. the past and whether or not you could really forecast r
j
\\/
13 drastic new! assumptions g
m
[
14 For example, looking at experience, in my hearing 4
2 15 section it has projected if things are done the way they are-16 now, theaperiedf.is seven months.
I will give you the days.
-g l
"8 g
17 CHAIRMAN ~HENDRIE:
SSER,. final.
5 Cr la MR. SHAPAR:
Thirty days,. time to file new E
l 19-contentions and seek discovery, because discovery is supposed 20-to be related.to contentions.
2T CHAIRMAN IENDRIE:-
File new cententions and l
Q 22 seek discovery.
23 MR. SHAPAR:
Sixty days, Board holds second I
C 24 pre-hearing conference; hears arguments on new contentions.
25,
Thirty-five days; Board order on new contentions
(
ALDERSON REP
29
+
1:
and sets hearing schedule.
,8 2
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That is 12S.
3 MR. SHAPAR:
I will take.your word for it.
O 4
4 Ten days, time to file objections to Board Order
=
5 by parties.
Five days; time for staff to object to Board b$6 Order.
- J 7
COMKISSIONER AHEARNE:
That is in addition to the K
j original time?
dd 9
MR. SHAPAR:
Ye s.
They are supposed to represent z'
h 10 the public interest..
iEl 11 MR. ROSENTHAL:.
That takes longer.
ir
(
12 MR. SHAPAR:
Fifteen daysr; time allowed for Board g-y' 13-Order oc contentions.
/
- n-
[
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:-
On contentions or on the objections?
!Ir I
l 2
15 MR. SHAPAR:
On contentions..
i MR. COTTER:
That would include resolving objections.
l g
16 e
Yes.
Five days; time for summary E
l lii 18 disposition.
.. _.R CHAIRMAN'HENDRIE: Someone laughed bitterly when 19 k
you said that.
Why is that?
20 l
21 MR. SHAPAR:
You laughed so you explain.
C 22 MR. ROSENTHAL:
No.
23,
(LAUGHTER.)
j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE':
When did you file the request C'
24 ;
summary disposition? They have just reached a final decision I
25 ALDERSON REP ORTING COMPANYJNC.
30 g
1 on contention, is that correct?
2 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
[
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE1:
Now you are saying there are kq.)
4
'five days to prepare the testimony.or identify wh'ich J
=
5 contentions --
Ik&
MR. SHAPARL-Submission of' motions on summary I
R T
dispositions..
X I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE.1:
The detailed support for that ci 9
does not have tar be generated in five days?
No,_ it does not.
II MR MALSCH:. To-file.a motion-for summary it p 12.
d.isposition,. you. need detailed support for the motion.
You get OEg 12 five-days to do that.
m k
14 COMMISSIONER.AHEARNE:
That is very short.
Il g
15 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes-a d 16 MR._ ROSENTHAL:
My laughter was prompted by the fact d
h IT that motions for summary judgment are about as rare as hearings l
18 that last one week.
Excuse me,. summary dispositions.
i O
19 MR. SHAPAR:-
It has beert the suggestion that we l
g M
ought to lengthen _ the schedule.
21 Thirty days,. response to motions for summary O
- 1,,o,ition; ten days, 3,a,d ru1in,on summary dis,o,1 tion.
22 23l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Discovery has not begun yet, M
formal discovery?
25 l MR SHAPAR:
Discovery is going on.during this whole wremureamweemm a
l 31 1
period.
2 t.HAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It started back at day 30.
3 MR. BICKWIT:
I thought discovery was the first 60 4
days.
e i
COMMISSIONER AHEAME:
Discovery has to occur after 5
{
6 the Board has agreed on what the contentions are.
R1 7
MR. SHAPAR:
But there has been discovery going on X
y 8
all along throughout the hearing.
ci 9
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The final trigger --
2.E 10 MR SHAPAR:
Relates to the contentions.
Five days,.
E g
IT hearing starts.
IE.these figures are correct, this adds up l
c$
12 to 205 days;. seven months.
t 3
i 13 MR; COTTER:
I would like to note a typographical h
14-error where it says "five months" in my memor.cndum, it should I
a l
li have said "eight months."'
.I f
16 The long and the short of it is the MR. SHAPAR:
e 17 way the system has been working up to now, you get a period i{
18 of around seven. months after the staff's final document is g
c 19 issued.
It can be lesser; it can be more.
g 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Nowhere in there is a l
21 l
specified time for start and end of discovery.
It almost O
22 sounds the way you have it worded that you cou1d pu11 l
23l discovery out and it would not shorten anything.
s
.J 24 MR. SHAPAR:
Discovery is supposed to relate to 25 l contentions.
l
}
L i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY l N C.
0
32 y
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The way you.have laid out 2
the schedule, the contentions are raised and then the Board y
reviews those= contentions, people are allowed to argue about C'
4 those contentions,. but at least a_ priori, I could pull discovery
=
5 out as a' function and. I would still get 205 days.
5 g&
- HR SHAPAR:
Yes, but. I think one of the major 3g 7
credits-of allowing this period of time is extending discovery..
T, g.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Howard,. when in this array of d.d y
items does the date occur on which-you get your last crack i) la to issue a. questiort on discovery?
3 g
tr Is: it down there at 125 days in when the Board Order a
l y
12 on new con.tentions and hearing schedule comes up?
2E
(~'
!I 13 MR. SHAPAR:
It is set in the individual cases by the l
iii
[
14 Boards.
It is towards the end of the process.
5
(
E 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What sort of experience i.
f 16 is this based on or what assumptions are factored in, does it w
y 17 reflect pre-TMI experience or-best guess?
i la MR. SHAPAR:
It is the hearing attorneys' best guess
=
k 19 based. on. actuaI past practicei. a lot of cases that have been R
20 going on in the last year-or twcr..
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYr Does that reasonably reflect C
~
22 the expanded SSER's and so on?
23,
MR. SHAPAR:
It reflects the most recent experience i
b 24 we have had 25 MR. CASE:
If you pick up about five months on all
/
1 33 l
1 those 1983 plants order to permit --
2 COMMISSIONdR GILINSKY:
To pick up what?
l 3.
MR. CASE:
Pick up five months per plant in order to 4
permit this kind of discovery costs 120 professional staff.
5 That means in order for me to get our SER's out five months Ij 6
ea.rlier, to permi.t this kind. of discovery, I liave to somehow 7,
7 find in this Agency 120e professionals to do it.
K]
8 MR SHAPAR:
In connection with that, there are ci ci 9
really two d.iscrete questions here We really have not come i
h la to this one directly There is a general question of how yotr
!!!l li gentlemen want to orient your discc"ery process after the final.
is.
p 12' staff document is available.
(s3 4
13, There are special rules relating to the staff which l
14 insulate them to some extent from discovery One of the E
15 questions you. will. be facing later on is whether or not the E
f 16 insulation of the staff ought to stay the way it is or be mi(
17 changed E
lii la CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In this seven month array of k
l 19 events,. there mtist come a. time which is sort of the latest f
20 time at,which any party can reasonably lie expected to be 21 allowed to discover, that is, to ask somebcdy a question or i
take a deposition or whatever.
l C 22 23 Where would.that occur?
C 24 COMMISSIdNER AHEARNE:'
Looks like 155.
That is the i
25 time-on his list for final Board Order on the contentions.
Up
^
(
i I
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY. INC.
34 l
il until that time, I would guess someone could refuse to answer l
2 a discovery question on the grounds that 3
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
On day 155, you launch your last 4
set of discovery questions, probably at the staff.
How long
=
5 does the staff get to answer?
Igi MR. COTTER:.
It depends on how many questions you j
7, launch; you carr launch 5 or 305.
The staff can come in and k8 argue that you are not giving them a reasonable amount of time.
c.i d.
9 That is standard. procedure on both sides.
-i h
10 MR.. BICKWIT:
I do not understand why it takes 155 iE{
11 days to decide on new contentions after the issuance of the it j
11 final SER k'
C012iISSIONER AHEARNE:
Len, you.are over on our side!
13 l
14 (LUGHTER.)
2 2
15-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:- Thisris'the way it is, or E
16 the best. estimate of the way it would be.
j e
Yes.
lii 18 MR. COTTER:
Obviously, the more this is discussed,-
the more you. become aware-of the, morass you have thrust yourself 19 2
20 into.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The morass we have thrust O
22 att part1=fgants into.
23,
MR. COTTER:
We have been in it.
The point I wan.
\\
24 l to make is there are so many variables in here that the five T-22 25 months I have talked about in this paper is obviously pretty ALDERSON REPORTJNG CO_M_ PANY, INC.
35 1
conservative.
That five months is not viewed as the standard 2
every time.
Th'at five months is viewed as an outside length 2
of time that.the Board should look to as a guideline.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What do you mean by "outside"?
(
5 MR. COTTER:
If they can do it in a shorter period of
{
=
$$6 time, they not only should but they will, g
R, 7
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I might have misunderstood you.
I thought you were saying in view of what Howard had I
dd 9
laid out, the five months was unrealistic, i
h 10 MR. COTTER:
I an sorry.
I was making a ' joke.
I am E{
ti speaking seriously now.
I am trying to make a point that I g
II presented you with a serious attempt at constraining the 5.
'(J 13 post-SER supplement process..
l.14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You thin: it is a realistic 2
15 one?
E g
16 MR. COTTER:
I think so, s
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
He has my problem.
In times of E.
R 18 disaster, we both tend to make jokes and people occasionally --
6 19 MR. COTTER:
Thank you, R
20 (LAUGHTER.)
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Wait until you are making public 22 apologies to blind people all over the United States.
([)
2'3 MR. BICKWIT:
There is no discovery needed in order 24 to file a contention and to have the Board act on the ss 25l contention.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC
36 7
[
]
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Say that again.
2 MR. BICKWIT:
Discovery is not relevant to contentions 3
except after the contention is admitted.
There is no discovery O'
4 that should proceed the filing of contentions, the' filing 5
of new contentions or the acting on contentions.
That is why I
{
6 I do not quite understand why it takes 155 days for the Board R
7 to act on contentions I
g 8'
COMMISSIONER'AHEARNE:
After day 10, new contentions r.1 ci 9
are filed. and. discovery sought?
$g 10~
MR. SHAPAR:
Yes-iEl 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Sixty days later the Board
~
g 12.
holds a second pre-hearing conference on the new contentions?
()
4 g 13 MR. SHAPAR:
Yes, to hear argument on them.
's a
}
14 COMMISSIONER ArIEARNE:
That is two months to prepare-T 2
15' the argument on the contentions.
N f
16 MR. BICKWIT:
To-my mind, I. can see no rational e
g 17 explanation for that.
There is no discovery to proceed the lir 18 filing of contentions.
=
1:
MR. SHAPAR:
Formal discovery can be going on at R.
19-20 all times.
21 MR. BICKWIT:
That is the first thing that is supposed h
22 to happen in these proceedings, the filing of intervention 23,
petitions and contentions.
These are supposed to be acted b
24 on with dispatch.
25 MR. COTTER:
You.have to have a basis for acting on
. ALDERSON REP ORTING COMPANY. INC.
37 1
them.
I am confused by what you are saying.
2.
MR. BICKWIT:
There is no discovery -- no discovery ought to be permitted as a pre-condition to the filing or the 7
4 acting on contentions, b.ecause no factual showing is asked
=
5 for in the filing or the acting on contentions.-
I$&
C0leiISSIONER AHEARNE:
Until the contention has been R
b 2
7 agreed. to as.an acceptable contention?
X g
MR. COTTER:
Are you saying that is the case, there d
~
d 9
is no discovery -.- how do you tell whether a contention is 10 valid.or notr~'~~.
~-
E g
11
' _ COMMISSIONER.AHEARNE':.
On its face, I would assume, is.
j 12 MR_ ROSENTHAL:
At least under the Appeal Board's
( >l 3
g 17 interpretation of the rules of practice --
a
[
14
' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
A view not universally agreed with!
12.
E 15 MR ROSENTHAL:
I appreciate that; that is why I E
f 16 stressed the Appeal Board The merits of a particular e
g 17 contention is not an element in the determination as to b
18 whether to admit the contention to the proceeding.
That
=
l~
19-being. so. I have some difficulty in understanding why there 20 need. be discovery with respect to a contention prior to the 21 time the Licensing Board either. admits or declines to admit O
22.
that contention.to the proceeding.
23 :
MR. MALSCH:
I think this schedule suggests the problem is not so much with discovery but taking three months 24 25 to admit contentions.
You file on day 30 and it is not until ALDER! EON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
38 1
day 155 or so that they finally get decided on.
All you are 2
looking at is specificity of basis.
3 C0!DfISSIONER AHEARNE: That is 125 days or four months 4
to reach a conclusion.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Still grunting around with 5
3 6
Howard's schedule,. at 155 days, the Board gets out an Order R
R 7
on the last round of contentions, presumably the final round K
g a
and. sets a hearing schedule That is the point at which this r.1d 9-final. spasm of discovery can start, i
h 10 Are people going to file motions saying, give me more E{
11 time to file motions for summary disposition until I complete a
j 12 discovery,. that is, I cannot file those motions until I N
[
('s y
13' complete discoverv?
If so,. then instead of proceeding promptly m.
l 14 to day 160, the time for submission of motions for summary IT E
15 disposition, you. could add. up to another month or two while E
g 16 people get the answers to their discovery questions.
at ll 17 Is that right?
5 lii 18 MR_ SHAPAR:
That is right.
=lt 19,
!E BICKWIT:
I do not see why there is no time 20 between the Board Order on contentions and the filing of 21 summary disposition. motions.
C 22 Ca^1an^n usunats:
John. vour vencit is workins-23 COMMISSIONER AHEARN":
I am not a ventriloquist v
24 t so I will have to speak.
I 25 l Hy understanding of our rules is the contentions need i
l l
Ai fWDh DE'DMTlMt"l t"*f"iMD AMV tMt
39 1
not be filed until 15 days before the pre-hearing conference.
2 MR. MALSCH: That is right, that is the first round 3
of contentions.
s 4
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That very first round
=
5 follows this SSER.
d.
I think the rule was designed to MR. MALSCH:
R 7
address this.
K l
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
How would it be applied?
d 9
9 Would it be applied as here we have this SSER issued, would ig 10 the rule then be applied. that this pre-hearing conference E
il that is on your schedule, the contentions. need not be filed a
p 12' until 15 days before then?'
7 V
13 MR. SHAPAR:
'I do not think so.
l 14 COMMISSIONER AIEARNE:
Is part of' the time you have li in here -- I was just reading the docket file of one particular I noticed in the-pre-hearing conference that was held f
16 case.
e li 17 to try to clarify the contentions,. I assume, one of the 3{
18 conclusions reached was that the contentions were not well e
19 enough crafted to be understandable and a recess was taken g
20 for several months to have-them redrafted.
21 MR. BICDfIT:.
Several months?
I do not understand' C,
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was going to say five or 23 ;
six because that is what I recall.
24 MR. BICDiIT:
Mr. Chairman, I think all of us here 25 l need to go over these schedules and get a better grip on
_ALnrnenhuarmtvaT1wa r nMD AMY I Mt-
40
(
1 exactly what is happening.
I would propose we move onto another 2
issue.
CHAIRNAN HENDRIE:
I am inclined to take that up 3
4 with the following admonition.
I talked on Monday with Tony.
E and those members of the Panel who were in town and who could 5g&
come to tunch.
R 14 7
We discussed.this point There was no member of X
j 8,
the Panel who saw any reason why this process fr,om the d
ci.
9:
issuance of the final supplement until the opening of
- i h la the hearing'had to go beyond five months except if a most E
{
11 extraordinary case and in. many cases could be shorter.
j 12-What I hear at this table is the practice may indeed Oj.i2 be such that sta scheduting is reasonab1e at seven months or
[ 14 even longer but what I keep hearing also are expressions that 15 people just do not: see why it needs to ber that way.
j 16 Ye's,. indeed,. go and study the schedules, but I te11 l
si I
g 17 you,. do not come back wi.th anything longer than five months.
Eli 18' I have-now become convinced without perhaps understanding the E
fine. details of the system,. I can at least wring out that-much 19' 3
20 from it and hold. peopIe and pin their scalps to the wa11 21 and make it work.
22 Whetiher there is anything beyond that which can 23 reasonably be gotten in terms of setting guidelines, I~do not b
24 know and I urge you to seek that.
At least that much is clear 1
25 '
to me.
1 47 1
CO}efISSIONER AHEARNE:
While agreeing with the 2
genera 1 sense of frustration you are expressing and great 3
interest in seeing what comes back, I am skeptical that 4
app 1ying a set of dead 1ines on something without understanding
=
5 what is going. on inside it and therefore without modifying Hg6 or giving some specific kinds of guidelines to modify what R
7 is going air inside it,. will lead. to a final change.
X g
It may 1ead us, ta be able to put down on our d.
ci 9
schedu1e the different: times i
h 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I would expect them to be met.
E{
tr I expect this review process perhaps to recommend some things j
12.
that ought to be issued. as instructions and guidance by the O [
i, Commission whica wou1d get some of those internat det.11,
[
14 in. order.
E 15 MR. ROSENTHAL:
It depends on how tough minded you g'
16 rea11y want your adjudicators to be.
I think in the final e
g 17 analysis what this comes down to, it is the same thing as 1
la you will find iir the Courts.
You will find a U.S. District
=lt 19 Judge who will sit up there and. will not take any kind of k
20 exp1anation as to why somebody cannot be ready for trial 21 in three weeks; he says, I do not care whether you work C.
22 around the c1ock or not, we are going to triat in three weeks 23 and you are going to be here and ready to go.
24 Tlien you get District Judges that are a 1ot more 25 j soft hearted or a lot more compassionate, call it what you A I f"1E"DeM DE'DADTIMt t"*t%dD A MV IMr
42 I
will,. and their case, the same case before that Judge may go
')
2 to trial in a year.
3 I think a lot of this is going to depend upon how V
4 tough you want your adjudicators to be.
I say this as one K
who has had at least some, from my standpoint, too much, I
g exposure to evidentiary proceedings around here.
I can tell l
^
E T
you they come in. with tears streaming down their face and i
2}
8-this includes the staff.
(
d ci 9
For all of this talk about the staff being ready to l
l h
to go to trial in five ' days,. I can tell you I hear as many z
_j 11 piteous explanations. for why the staff is not ready as I hear j
f m
g T2.
from other parties.
f Ox I am.sorry about that,. Mr Denton, but that is the la
(
14 case.
D 2
15 If you really want to speed this process up and I Te g'
16 think it is good, but I think in the final analysis what l
d l
tj-17 it may take is a tough policy on the part of the Boards E
l 18, and they say, if you have-to work around the clock, you l
E I
19 work around the. clock and we are going to go to trial i
R.
I on such and.such a date-and you will be ready and your 20' 21 discovery is going to be done in this period of time and 1
22.
if it means you have to again spend weekends and nights at
[ O 23 1 it, you do it.
24 j You are then confronted with the intervenors who t
will frequently say, we have limited resources or confronted 25 l l
)
Al nFDCM DFDODTINC (*nMD AMY I Mr*
43 i
with the staff who says, mo1ogists are tied up on a dozen 2
other proceedings.
I do not know where all that comes out.
3 I am persuaded that is really what is at the O'
4 bottom, setting specific-guidance where you can, recognizing S
there has to be an element of flexibility assigned to the E{
6 Boards,. this is what the Commission wants, look at every day f7 of delay is "x" number of dollars or whatever and we-want X
g.
g you to put away the handkerchief.
dd.
9 There are Federa.1 Judges that do this.
They are ig not turned over in, the Court of Appeals for doing it.
Due E
g ii process does not require that you give people unlimited d
12-Periods of time to do things-z is That.is something the Commission. ought to bear in R
. g 14 mind,. what kind of directions it wants to give.
I think N
-E 15 having. looked.:at a. lot of these proceedings, the Boards I
y 16 are reacting sympathetically to these pleas of we are e(
17 just overloaded or we have limited resources or whatever.
E.g is.
If you. are-going to react in that way to those E
N 19 pleas,, you; are going to have seven. months to ten months or R
'~
20 whatever.-
21 CHAIR!iAN IGNDRIE:
Good.
Are there any comments?
O 22.
nR coTTEa=
I have one.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIEr On this?
O sa. corrEa:
In gener 1.
xy trustration 1 eve 1 is 2.
25 i rising as I sit here and listen to you debate my business.
Why l
A& Menmki DEMAS'T"IkW t'*r'hA S A kIV I kIF
44 do you not just tell me to do my business and let me do it 2
and my Boards?
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think that is what we are hoping 4
to end up doing.
In the meantime, I think it would be useful
=
5 to struggle some-with this schedule proposition and the I{
6 five: months. or the seven months for precisely the reason --
7, g
7 you. and OGC and Allen and. Howard get together and~ chew on that.--
K g
g John mentions that we are going to have to look and see if ds we should not offer some guidance and instruction on some i
h 1(y of the sub-elements that go into it.
E g
it I must say it looks to me like on the average pull i
k d
12 a couple of months out of what is currently projected in r
Ois these schedules and that is one of the places I wanted to i
it g
14 be today.
R E
15-I ask Ebrthe Commissioners' guidance.-
We could E
[
16 continue with one or another of the-items on this list or g
s-l g
17 we could do whatever affirmation matters are available to be E
Gir 18 done-and then either quit or come back-to this.
=
19 What are-your available times?
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
At some point, are we going l
21 to hear from Mr. Dircks describing proposals he had to O
22.
reallocate staff' resources?
l 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE To work on Part A of this-list, C
24 the staff parts of it.
I trust we will.
25 l What is your time-limit?
l
~
45 i
C0!EISSIONER AHEARNE:. I think I can stay until 5:30.
2 (LAUGHTER.)
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDt -Ifdo not think you are on a 4
critical path.
=
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Peter, do you want to help me out?
I{
6 I hate to have the Chair turn out to be the weak link.
7 (LAUGHTER.)
x g
g CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think Vic is due back on duty d
d.
9 at 3:30 p.m I
h 10r COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I am not under any time n.
g Ti constraints other than what my mind can handle, which means ir j
12 I can. stay until 5:30 p.m but my ability to function probably 13 will.stop about an hour before that.
l 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Rhther than bash further down N
E 15 this list, why do we not hear from the staff?
Among other "a:.
~
16 reasons wiiy I would like to turn that way at this time is g
at 17 some of the things you will discuss amongst yourselves are E
l k
18 in fact items down the line..
It might be useful for you to
=
19 clarify some: of the elements of the five to seven months 20 before we come back to those.
l 21 What I will ask that we do now is we heard some 22 meetinas ago on this sub5ect from the staff on the sorts of O
23 impacts that there were on them as they tried to move their 24 review schedules up to prevent impacts on plants - down the line.
l 25 They were going to go back and scratch their heads
46 f
I some more over that and refine that estimate and also and
(
2 probably more to'the point for our purposes, I suggested they 3
see what those impacts look like if we are able to provide 4
or contract their previously proj ected 15 months from SSER e
5 to an operating decision down to 11.
That is, to take four II l
g&
months of it out.
i R
g, 7
With that preamble, Bi1I,. can you tell us ~ how we X
g 3.
stand?
d i
n.
9 MR DIRCKS:-
I can give you.a status report.
This 10 is a. floating. target we are shooting. at, I can give you some E
l
{
11 idea where we are.
it.
p 12.
We have now pinned down what resources NRR needs to 13-get its SER production; rate under some control.
We-have l
l
[
14 determined possibly where-we can pick up the resources from
!iE i
2.
15 and. when I talk about " picking up resources" I am talking about E
f 16 either resources in terms or transfer of people or in terms of e
ll 17 programs --
i lii 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is this why you have Joe
.It Henry doing technical review again?
19 k
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am going to be a division leader and we are going to get all manners of old dragons 21 b
22 out of the closet.
23,
MR. DIRCKS:
In terms of getting resources, we i
24 are talking about either freeing up resources from programs h
that are ongoing and could be delayed or deferred within NRR I
25 Al 17FDCEAN DFpnDTING COMP ANY INC
l 47 1
and transfer those people into licensing case work.
g
~
We have looked at possible programs that could be 2
3 contracted out and then substitute dollars for people.
We 4
have. looked at what programs could be transferred from NRR 5
into other offices, for them to either carry out or contract Ig&
out.
7,g 7
Einally,. we are looking at the problem in terms of 3-people and skiIIs that could be transferred into NRR.
di 9
In. terms of numbers of people, after we go through i
l 10 the screening out process and define to. some extent what E
g 11' programs could be delayed or deferred with NRR, we have ar come down wi_th 50 persons to be transferred into NRR.
b>
j 12 d
13 They are identified not only by numbers of people g
T4 but in terms of skills and possible names of people.
We have E
E 15.
gone through every office in the Agency.and have identified sE j
16 persons by name.
4 17 We have even identified some people at the i
R 18 Commissio:t level We have not identified any Commissioners at z-1
~
19' this point For example,. in 0PE, we have identified three 20 people with. critical skills.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Give each Commissioner a near term O
22.
On case.
23 MR.. DIRCKS:
That is only one part of the equation.
24 What we are trying to do now is pin down the impact in terms 25 ;
of what programs in other offices would have to be deferred or AI f9EDd2/hl DEDt%DTIMM."AM D A MV IMP
48 i
delayed or impacted.
When we remove a critical skill from d
2 standards, it may impact back on certain things such as the 3
fire protection rule or equipment qualification work that is 4
going on.
We want to pin down how much of -a delay or
=
5 deferral we-are talking. about I do not think we have N
6.
straightened that out yet,. although Kevin was working on that Rg 7
this morning.
K g
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:.
Bill, in the work within NRR,.
d d.
9-I gather you have freed' up a certain amount of people within.
af h
10 NRR7' E
{
11 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
is j
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
For-that work within NRR,.
(l 13 is all of it been farmed out or is some of it deferred?
g-a l
14 MR. DIRCKS:
Some of it is deferred; some of it is k
E 15 farmed out.
We keep identifying other candida.te areas to be E
g 16 deferred.
I think this morning I asked about the SEP program as ti 17 and whether that could. be delayed. for a year or a year and I
~
k 18:
a_ half and what resource impact that would have.
I think b
NRR. might have gotten the answer this af ternoon.'
We have 19 I
20 new things we are-looking at.
l 21 In giving us possibly-two months out of the four we r
C-22 were hoping for, you might have also subtracted the thrse 23' people we were getting out of OPE. We are going to have to i
V 24 figure out where we can replace those people from.
1 25 I just wanted to give you a magnitude of the problem.
49 1
I do not have the firm answers yet.
It witl1 take me a little 2.
longer to get that.
As soon as you tug on one thread, the 3
fabric begins to unravel on another end.
(
4 We had proposals, for example, from Vic Stello 5
that instead of moving people, he would be willing to pick up segments of the SER chapters to do.
I think what we are
~n T
looking at now is an agreement between NRR and ISE as to
'n j
a what would be the chapters, what would be-the benefit to NRR r.11 P
and. what skills would. be required.
i h
10' C0fD4ISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would that also include what
=j 11 ISE will have to give-up?
ir-p 12' MR DIRCKSr That is a very important question, what
,s 3
i g 11 inspections would not be carried out As Vic would point out,.
i a
l 14 you.are not talking about a deferral, you are talking about an th
{ 15 inspection that would not be carried.out.
a f
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In some sense we have a l
al ti 17 finite amount of resources, whether they are dollars or people.
%{
18.
If you apply some amounts of those dollars and some amounts of l
e IF those people to items that were not going to be applied to, g
1 20-something has to give..
l 21 MR. DIRCKS:
Something is giving.
Something will h
22.
give and it is a matter of what we are willing to giv e.
23,
We can look outside in the labs.
I think when we gV 24 are talking about critical skill levels such as in the 25l instrumentation and control area, that is a very scarce f
f Al nFR4GN RFPORTING (*OMP ANY. INC.
50 resource within our own Agency but it exists in places Iike i
the DOE labs, particularly labs that have been working on g
g safety programs.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Those cost money.
4
=
5 MR. DIRCKSr It is easier for us to deal with money I$6 than people-right now.
We can again look around and find some 7-money.
We prefer to talk in. those terms.
X Bob Minogue is taking a look and is working this g
g dd y
morning on --
i El COMMISSIONER.BRADFORD:
Where can you find money?
tg eE i 11 MR DIRCKS:
We have all sorts of magic we can d 12 perform.in.that area When you. are talking about money,. you z
are also talking about program deferrals.
is it COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is what I was asking.
[ 14
$E 15 CHAIRMAN ~HENDRIE:
There is a substantial amount of E
technical assistance; just like the staff time itself, you g
16 as divert some of it into this and. that means the things it had g
17 E
been. projected. to do are going to. have to go down the line.
!ir is I
E" 17 MR. DIRCKS1 It is not just a problem of finding 20 people or bodies.
It is a problem of finding scarce skills, 21-critical skills.
Wherever that skill exists in the Agency, that skill is performing a very essential job.
When you C
22 move that person, you are going to pay a price, 23,
The question is what is that price and that is what b
24.
l 25j we are tyging to pin.down C
-AI DERSON REPORTJNG_COMPAZY,INC, g
51 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you have a fairly good sense 0
2 that you have pinned down the benefits?
3 MR. DIRCKS:
Tlie benefit was the commitment Harold
.q,
4 made the other day; if we can find these people, we can come k5 up' with a commitment to produce the documents necessary to l
{
get the hearings underway T2B 2.,
7 C014(ISSIONER AHEARNE:
You..will end up telling us K
[
8.
you. are comfortable tha.t the allocation of those resources d
9 are sufficiently weII defined on what kind of schedule that IG those benefits will be-achieved?
El 11 MR. DIRCKS:
As confident --
it
(
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:.
When you.take five pe,ople i
p g
E 13-who are working on. a. program and. you pull them out and say i
=
l 14 you are going to defer that program for two years.
That is 15 an explicit cost.
If yon put them into a pool of people and i
16 say I am now added into the pool, the-tangible benefit is not e
li 17 as great as if you say,. now I have a schedule and I have these 18 deadlines that have to be met and these five people will be h
1 19 working on that piece of' the-schedule and therefore, by their g
20 presence,. I can now meet that deadline.
That is a tangible l
21 benefit.-
22 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes T cie not think we have as much 23 certainty in. the benefit as-in the cost.
We do have i
I
<V, 24 uncertainty in the cost.
Let me-say we probably have more l
25 benefit in fulfilling our commitment to produce than the i
l
52 1
I hearing process in keeping its schedule.
2 Every time you slip a month there, it is a substantial 3
impact on the beginning of the process.
4 In terms of people going in, I think its you divide 5c it into thirds: we have identified and gotten commitments E
j from offices to supply one-third of what NRR neds and i
7l
- a. substantial agreement on the second and third and there is Kj, some disagreement on the remaining third.and that remaining d.d 9
third is in terms of maybe what can be done as far as one-i h
10 office picking up chunks of the process.
El 1T CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Tell me again what are the a
p 12 elements One of the elements is shif ting people into NRR
(
N or doing.- that in an equivalent fashion by moving jobs out of 5
13'.
l n
[
14 NRR and creating available NRR people 15 I remember when we were talking about the base f 16-schedules you have, which were approximately 15 months from as(
17 SSER to operating decision date, there was something like R
W 18 50 people.
That comes down presumably if that period shortens-h You were trying to make an estimate where it 19-from 15' to 11.
k 20 is atathe..ll'..'
21 MR. DIRCKS:
In applying and taking credit for those four months you can save, what was done was to spread C
22 23 not only the benefits to the people transfer problem but v
24 to the program deferral-slippage problem.
25f CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It would allow you not to defer 4
53 I
or'not defer as much programs other than OL licensing which i
2 are of. considerable importance.
l 3
MR. DIRCKS:. Harold ~,. you might' he prepared to look j
4 at -- it is such an-indefinite state -- you might be prepared
(
i s
to talk about what would be the cost of program deferrals and
[
g i
{
6 slippages in NRR I do not think we can pin it down yet G
2 7
as to other offices X
\\
g Kevin did. have some meetings with Bob Minogue this r51 9
morning 10
.MR CORNELL:
Until we agree on which bodies and if{
11' which branches,. it is very difficult to say.
y 12 MR DIRCKS:
I would like-to put the caution in p
11 that even here,. we are still looking at what can be given up g 14 and. what cannot be given up.
IE.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEr Bi1I used the word f
16
" commitment."
I would like to understand, do. you propose to as g
17 ask the Commission whether they agree with these actions that h
18 are being taken before they are taken or are you proposing to rIt 19 inform us of what actions are takeit?-
20 CHAIRMAN'HENDRIE:.
What r'want to do is develop 21 be~ tween this discussion of staff resource allocation and d,~
21 rescheduling aspects with the hearing and with Commission 23,
review,. to see what arprogram looks like which across all of 24 those things does as much as we reasonably can to move the 25 ten or so near term OL's forward and minimize the impact, n
1
54 1
recognizing that we are not going to be able to eliminate it 2
and beyond that, to prevent impact, defining " impact" as 3
the licensing and construction completion not coming out t
~
4 together, to prevent impact after this first group of 5
ten or eleven or whatever it is so that we do not. have
$6 this problem out through the years.
7 TRose are the objectives and it is primarily to this Xg a
latter one of prevenring; downstream impac.ts that we are looking-dd 9-at when we. look at the staff resource implications.
i h
1(I I do not know that the Commission has formally said iE
{
11 those in fact arei the Commission's objectives _
m y
12-
, COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My question does not relate O [
i3 to the ob3ectives.
M7 question re1ates.to when sitt used
[
14 the word. " commitment.'"
I was just wondering whether we are 2
15 in a.. situation where agreements are being made and people are E
l j
16 being-shifted and programs-deferred and we are being informed d
g 17 of those-actions or are we being informed that hers is~a set i
18 of proposals and' you had. intended to ask us whether we agreed.
l
=
19-CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I guess the latter.
I make no i
k 20 bones-of the proposition tha.t the objectives as I have stated 21 them are the objectives I m going to pursue as long as I am h
22 able.
23,
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am not disagreeing with v
24 the objectives.
For myself, prior to agreeing to a bunch of 25l shifts, I just have to see what the impacts are.
_ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
55 i
1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think that is reasonable.
That 2
is why I say that I think what we are looking at are a set 3
3 of proposals.
[
I 4
MR.. DIRCKS:
We are not taking any action unilaterally.
I
=
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was concerned bilaterally.
5 6
Ms.
DIRCKS:. We are not doing anything.
We are
~
y 7
in. a very Ma* state: of uncertainty.
X We have not put this l
together yet.
d.i 9
CHAIRMAN'HENDRIE:
Recognizing the time to come 10.
more' clearly to what-the prices are arid. so on, could you E
11 elaborate at little?
Recogni:ing the uncertainty, can you a
p 12 tell us the-details?
('d 5
g 12 MR. DENTON:
I.should. mention there are some
=
l 14 short term slips occurring in high. priority programs in order D
15 to meet these dates for SER's in February, f
16 CHAIRMIN HENDRIE:
You have already taken steps as IT there.
E5 18 MR DENTON:
That is not the general package.
E 19 Just to set the stage. --
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Where should I look to 21 find out what has slipped?
O 22 MR DENr0N:
Across the board; everything but case 23 !
work.
7x U
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It sounds like more than a 25 ;
couple of projects.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYo INC.
56 1
MR. DENTON:
You asked last time what was the benefit of a reprogramming in the case work and I did not answer that 2
3 at the time.
If we look at our December schedules in our 4
blue book and if we were to meet those schedules and then 5
add on the 15 months we were at the time projecting, the E
$6 impact on the-85 plants would either be about 130 reactor 7,
months of delay, using the applicants' schedules, or about Xg 3;
55 reactor months of delay if you used our dates.
c.i ci.
9-That is the impact we are trying to avoid for the
~
in plants being finished.in 1983.
)
i E
{ 11 C014(ISSIONER. BRADFORD:
How many 1983 plants are there l
y 12 using your schedulest OEg 13 MR. DENTON:.
Roughly ten.
I do not have the numbers l
ar 14-in front of-me.
lii 15 COMMISSIONER.GILINSKn What does that assume about g 16 the Commission. review 7 e
i 17 MR. DENTON-That assumed the 15 month period.
EF 18L The numbers I am; quoting assumes-the liearing : process took b
the extent that is. reduced, then the numbers 19 15 months To:
k 20 go down.
21 I put together a program that would put enough people V
21 into meet those dates in 1981 originally and that is a number rm 23 like 141 or so that I had at one time.
When you asked that 24 I assume 11 months rather-than 15 months, I went back and 25 backed out the dates plant by plant to recalculate how much
_ ALDERSON,. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
57
~
1 time I had available to put in each one and I found that reduced 2
the need for total reprogramming by about 30 people, with the 3
effect of switching from a 15 month hearing proct.ss to an 11 4
month process for those plants in 1983.
It reduced the demand
=
5-for about 30 people,. from what it was before.
E{
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What number?
g 7
MR. DENTON::
Roughly 145' or so.
It was the original K
8 number'we had estimated.
di 9
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What was the base?
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The 1981 budget staffing level E
I think the base was something between 11 MR. CASE::
it.
g 12.
140 to 160.
We roughly doubled it.
Oi 13 MR DENTON:
In the thiddle of last year, we were g=
l 14-pulling only about 120 we have been gradually climbing up l
2 15 toward the 140 to_180 level, toward the end of last' year "z.
/
16 CHAIIUfAN HENDRIE:-
THa.t is like 115 at 11 months e
ti 17 and your need for outside people in principle could come down i'c 5
18 fron about-50' to 20.if you cook it all there.
=
C 19 MR DENTON:
I went back to see that of this 30, g
in: putting the program together, we.have been rather draconian 2if 21 in looking at what programs to not carry on.
Looking back, 22 I would recommend we not make cuts in the standard review plan revisions and our efforts in USI's and the SEP support.
23 3
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
No cuts in standard review plan 25 i revisions.
What was the next one?
l LD_ RSON REPORTING _C_O_ mph E
58 I
MR. DENTON:
Our efforts in unresolved safety issues, m
1 and in the SEP program.
We had proposed at one time to cut that 3
.p back severely.
4 I repicRed, upr about ten manyears in things that
=
5 I could have otherwise-been deferring.
The other 20 went to k
I 6
. reduce the needs for reprogramming from other offices.
T Ye-ended. up either deferring or transferring a itI 8
total of' 38 manyears of safety te<:hnology or operating reactor t.1 9
work that.had been planned before.
Of that 38, about 10 of IE i.t we_ arehactually~ going to postpone until we are in better E
shape.
The other 21 we-propose to do t'hrough spending money 4
II in Y
II and have that work continue.
OEg 13 Ti terms-of postponing-programs, there are about ten k
I' ponyears of programs that we are proposing to postpone The 15 other part that we are transferring will be done through l
f 16 contractual assistancer the 28.
m k
II COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Roughly $2.5 million?
l II MR. DENTON::
Yes.
Some of that does take someone i
e IY to follow tb work so. you do not pick up quite the whole game g
N when you g.ve-it to a. lab _ You.still have to have someone i
2T exercise technical supervision.
,V 22 The kinds of things we were deferring, some minor 23 l amendments, SER fuel enrichment change.
A lot of our actions V
M are little'_ butterflies that take a few weeks or months of 25 manpower and you add them all up and. they end up to a big thing.
I ALDERSON REPORTING C_OMPANYo INC,
59 1
We deferred a lot of the Category. B's and C's in 2
the generic issues, storm sewage model for coastal sites, 3
ice effects on safety related water supplies, chemical 4
discharges to receiving waters.
Joing through the B's and C's
=
5 of generic issues, we pick up 2.5 manyears by just postponing 5I6 action on what we consider to be the lower priorities.
T The ones that we consider of real safety significance, K
8 we we'uld still continue with technical assistance.
ci 9
We-defer some of the planned developments in the z
h 10 human factor area, some of the simulator improvements, some 5
}
11 of' the safety system status development kinds of things.
We w
g 12' end. up just flat out postponing until we can get back to (a
h 5-11 about this ten manyears and the rest we would pick up..
a d
14 That left a need for about 50 people and at least k
15 50 with the right skills.
We can produce SERs 11 months prior d
16 to the presently scheduled completion date on those facilities.
e
{
IT Eleven people are only like two percent of the Agency's
={
18 budget but these two percent are doing a lot of work.
T--f 19 As. Bill said, on that two percent, about one-third 20,
has been fully resolved with people with the right skills.
21 One-third. is very 'far along and about a third of it is C
22 still kind of up in the air.
23,
We do propose to take people up on their offer i
\\>
24 '
either to do work in kind or move people.
We in ISE did go 25 l through the SER and identify those areas where they seemed l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
60 I
uniquely set, to wr.ite'certain parts of the SER.
In some m
2.
areas, they both have enough capability to do the job.
3 If you take Chapter 12, for example, I am not 4
particularly impacted in doing Chapter 12.
They also have
=
5 the capability to do Chapter 12 because they have health IIk&
physics in the regional office.
If' they do Chapter 12 in 8;
7 the regional offices, which makes sense because you are there X
ll 8
close to the site, that' does enable me to play musical chairs 0
9 and maybe move a health physicist that I have over to a r
h IE project manager job or a plant that does not have a project
~
5 11 manager.
'We can. move people around to some extent.
I IT The 17 hardest people to come by turn out to be Oi 13 those people in the electrical instrumentation and contrci E
1L 14 area.
There is a shortage throughout the Agency.
Also the h
15 systems people where we just do not have anybody around a
i 16 that is not doing a vital job.
They are the ones we are w
l 17 going to have to really scratch for to find.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I wish I had 1 earned that trade k
19 when I was down here before.
g 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That is not availab1e through 21 the lab?
O n,
MR. DENT 0n:
That is the next option to exp1ere.
I 23,
MR. DIRCKS:
That takes longer to explore.
When i
s i'
24 Harold mentioned this 1/3-1/3-1/3, he is looking at'.it from the point of view of standards of research, saying, sure you 25 i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 61 1
can have them and that was the benefit.
As Harold pointed out, 2
two days later we get the bill which means certain critical 3
items according to those offices would have to slip and be V'
4 deferred.
What ww want to do now is pin down what they are
=
5 talking about in terms of' months or years.
t i
i 6.
MR DENTON:
Overall, I saw we were only about l
l 7
haIfway home or so in lining up firn resources that we x
g 8
could really say we have marshalled the forces to assign the l
d i
9-way Commissioner Ahearne said. you were going to work on this
$g 10 proj ect and. complete certaiIt parts.br these dates.
j l
g 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are there categories of a
j 12 work that are presently done by NRR that could be shifted to 13 l other offices?
a
[
14 MR. DENTON: That is included. in the shifting parts k
t 2
15 ta ISE.
I
~
16r
~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Conducting reviews -- I mean g
d i
I d
17 l non-review related. tasks.
5 18.
MR. DENTONr Yes, we are doing that also.
=
W 19 I
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:.
I bet discussion on moving SEP i
j 20:
over there will.come out.
21 MR. DENTON:
I propdse to move the SEP program O
22:
lock,. stock and barrel to IaE.
Since it is a stage one, l
23' ;
it has several years development and so forth.
They are-i j
L' 24 all operating plants.
Dick did not pick up on that idea.
l 25 'l \\
There are going to be some tough questions faced i
i l
.t.
.i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
a
i 62 j
when we finish up this first phase and look at trying to get
_s 2
a handle on the overall risks of these plants.
That will 3
require 1 lot of effort.
Research did agree to pick up a number of things.
4 i
We review standard code models for - Appendix K calculations,
=
5 E
and topical reports that are submitted by various vendors and i
g Rg 7
AEs.
A lot of that work, om the order of eight manyears, X
Research and Standards have agreed to do those-tasks which g
g d
g are lower priority in NRR.
They do not relate to case work i
g ja directly but they-have to be done to keep the process fine El 11 tuned.
E Research has agreed to pick those things up and d
12 1
r
(}
keep the codes-up to date and the models reviewed and so is E
l E
14; forth through. their own contractual process.
That is part a
E 15 of this internal reprogramming.
i is MR.. DIRCKS:
That is part of the problem.
As you l
d g
17 talk about gearing up the hearing process and the capability I
E of the Boards and supplementing their staff with not only l
g is 5
members' but with: technicaI assistance and legal assistance, 19 k
that will also add. to the dimension of the problem.
2g I think we are talking about slots and personnel 21 m
22 Pos itions.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think they were talking 23
([/
24 about legal assistance mainly.
Unlike the issue he raised earlier, if we expand 25 ;
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYo INC.
f 63 I
1 the Commission in its review, under Appendix B provision, there 2
is a need for technical people in OPE.
Cotter is not looking 3
for the same kind of people.
n
~
4 MR. DIRCKS:
Doubly direct.
In going through the 5
Agency to put people in NRR, we identified three from OPE.
I$6 It looks like we may not get those three but you may ask us l
K 7
to find. more X}
8 MR DENTON:
Likewise for the ACRS.
They saw an dd 9
increased demand and did not think-they could spare anyone.
Y la with the kind of pace we are talking about.
Eg 11 MR. DIRCKS:
There may be a timing problem here.
y 12 The immediate brunt may come here, where the need may come OE 13 for OPE ~ 1a.ter down the road.
We may have some months to cope ga.(
14 with that problem versus this problem.
!~r 2
15 MR. DENTON:
In. the long view, this is a small.
E f
16 bump on the C'ommission's overall program, to the extent that w
17 it gets piled up in the-next year..
It is an. awful lot of work E
N*
18 to be done.
I would feel more comfortable in making E
19 commitmentsrif we could be sure we could get the adequate k
20 resources-and if we finish things on time or before time, 21' then resources could go back to the previous assignment.
O 22 If we do not throw enough resources at it, we are 23 really going to struggle along and maybe not meet our 24 objectives.
I tried to devise a plan based on our experience 25 to guarantee, short of really fundamental problems being ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
64 1
found in some of these applications, that we could produce 2
those SERs on the dates we are talking about.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You have embedded in this 4
the assumptirn there-is no other major item, such as large 5
amounts of other hearings.
I i
6 MR. DENTON:
That is right.
1 E
7 MR. DIRCKS:.
It is based also-on the assumption X'l 8
of the 11 month periodw.
dd 9-CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How long do you think it will
$g 10 take to shake this further down into place so we can have z
k11
- a. reasonable tally of here is what we do and here is what ir j
12 the costs are in terms of deferrals, people-traded and money C'
gE 13 needed and.so on?
A. couple of days?
Early next week?
a
[
14 MR. CORNELL:
We are working on some of it right E
E 15 now..
We are working on individuals being transferred.
I think E
f 16 we can accomplish that by the end of this week.
Maybe I e
l 17 should say sometime early next week we will have something for i
E{
18 you;. I do not know whether it vill be a complete package or not.
O 19' MR. DENTON:-
One-key is the critical skills, absent g
20 finding the right people we have talked about in some 21 laboratory and getting 'them to work.promptly.:a They;are needed on 0
22 zo to so percent of the cases.
The imgacts wou1d suffer 23,
in that perce.utage unless we get the people to work fairly 24 promptly on some of those.
25 MR. SHAPAR:
Could I emphasi::e that all parts of the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
65 t
process are going. to have to mesh to the extent that these 2
SERs, et cetera, are disgorged.
That presumes a capability 3
of PeoP e who receive them, first ELD and then the Boards.
l The whole pr'ocess has to be looked at in terms of meshing 4
5-at the critical time.
I i
6 MR DENTON:
To reiterate what Ed said about the e
f7 value of every' month. that is not needed in the assumption X
g a
really reduces the peak d.
d.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:.
I think what Howard is also
- t
~
h 10 saying is we have to make sure Howard.'s side and Tony's side, E
i IT if' this-efficient production begins to work, that the rest--
d 12.
CHAIRMAR HENDRIE:
I think we indicated when we r
p_'
g la E
discussed. the details of Cotter's memorandum before that n
[
14 we were trying to suppiy the resources requested and generally
$i E
15 approved his other recommendations.
5.
f 16 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
I think Howard is saying he at
( 17 needs more lawyers.
l E
W 18 CHAIRMAN'HENDRIE-He may Because everybody is.
5 stretching down the Iine, fte is, also going to have to look in 19 20 his own office-at possible squeezing of things.
21 MR SHAPAR:-
I~ factored that in.
I still come up
(.
22.
with a shortfall.
23 j CHAIRMAN HENDRIEL How much?-
I i
V 24 MR. SHAPAR:
I need about 14; I can derive five from 25 {
my own shop, some of whom are not really experienced in hearings ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 66 i
but I think they are useable.
I presumed I could find five 2
elsewhere in the Agency.
I would need to go out for an 3
additional four.
4 MR.. DIRCKS1 We are talking to some extent in
=
5 abstracts.
With the way some of the hearings are going, I
i.
g.
and I thinic one case last week there were 175 Interrogatories C43 7
on a. sizeological question on a reactor case which is pending.
~
f g,
This will face Howard to take his sizeological staff,. move them d.
4 9
to answer these 17E questions-*ith many subparts and will tie
- s h
10 up that staff for the next three weeks.
iE I
11 The. magnitude'of that problem is just beginning to ci 11 dawn on usr the intensity.
r O
i s.
i Mr. CORNELL:
Just to add to one view of the a
l 14 Problem, if you. take about 55 professionals that NRR is going
$E E
15 to need,. add. on another-LE non professional clerical staff, E
y 16 ten people for the Boards,. ten people for ELD and so forth, e
tf 17 add onto that what we think we will get in an FY81 cut from 5
l t
is.
OMB of about 56 positions, you are talking about having to
=
19-come up.with 130 to 140 slots, That is going to involve 20
. abolishing old branches and old programs.
You cannot come 21 up with thar many slots that easily.
C 22 MR. DIRCKS:
There is the hiring freeze which we 23,
hope to see some resolution on.
U 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Peter, do I understand you 25 will not be around tomorrow afternoon?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
67 j
1 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is correct.
'l 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
From the standpoint of scheduling 3
other meetings, let's see if we can sort out the kinds of 4
meetings on this general subject.
5 We have this kind of meeting which from now on I am 5
j 6
going to: call meetings on revised licensing procedures, g
d.
7 namely,. this afternoons title, at which we work on the K
OPE /0GC' list and talk about hearing matters, Commission J
ti 9
matters,. staff resource-scheduling matters and so on.
Eg 10 We also have a. set of meetings called. discussion E
{
11 of application of the hearing process to pending proceedings.
m.
II What-is your recommendation if we-do not have a c3
('
3.
E II Commissioner here tomorrow?
a k
14 MR. BICKWIT:
Defer it E
h II CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Tomorrow afternoon's meeting a
g[
16 on application of the hearing process to pending proceedings e
N IT i is deferred.
i E
{it 18 There is also a. kind. of ~ meeting which seems to be 19 called discussion. of modifications to improve the licensing process The speakers are listed as EDO and OGC and what l
20 i
21 I ask is, is that another title for the first kind of meeting?
Yes, this kind.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We will now change the title 24 of that which is scheduled for Tuesday af ternoon to discussion 25 of revised licensing procedures.
e i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
T l
68
)
i 1
1 It may help people come to the right meeting if we 2
stop having too many titles for the same thing.
3 How are you. going to be set up to discuss these g
4 subjects further Tuesday at 2:00 p.m.?
5 MR_ DIRCKSt-Better than we are today.
E.{
6.
MR.. CORNELL:
I think we will be able to do so 7
CHAIRMAN HENDRIEr We have to shape up.
I really eT g.
8.
feel art obligatiort to make some reply to certain bodies in d
ci 9-the Congress. the latter part of next week.
i h
10' COMMISSIONER AHEARNEr You would.rather do it in E
{
11 writing-j.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Either that or head for the border.!
.=
g 13 (LAUGHTER.)
3 84
[
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The fellow said, I am too old
$E E 15-to rurt and too dumb-to steal.
We will. have to answer the f
16 questions.
e 17 MR DIRCKS What I would like to do is give you
'i 5
18 something; you will. i vet it in absolute terms.
We can 5
19' lay it out for your gen 2 information.
20 CHAIRMAN: HENDRIE:
What we need is a fair idea 2T of the price, so we can suggest whether we agree with the way 22 you have chosen deferrals or we suggest some other version b
23f or whether we feel badly enough about it that we would change something else; go back and see whether another little chunk 24 25,
could be squeezed out of the hearing process or the I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
69 1
Commission's time.
I am still going to try to get that other s
2 30 days away.
3 We have Monday afternoon, the briefing on the final 4
TMI:PEIS.
Sam,when you publish the final schedule, would 5
we not refer to. the final PEIS?-
I take it back, it is k
{
6 perfectly legal..
Sorry.
Delete my comment.
7, 7
We will. have a briefing on the TMI programmatic X'g environmentaI. impact statement.
Tuesday is an afternoon cii 9
continuation. of this meeting.
I assume people have things ig 10 which make Tuesday morning not convenient?
E
.g 11~
MR. CHILK:
Commissioner Bradford has meetings on o
y y
12' Tuesday morning.
0therwise,. Tuesday morning is clear.
O'
@ 11
~
g-CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
E was thinking about moving 14 the Personnel meeting on Wednesday morning out and giving us e
E 15 a morning block irt there.
E f
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I would not move it too far.
as j
g 17 That is fine with me.
b 18~
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have the fire under me to 5
19 gather together as much of a.. response as possible.-
Wednesday 20 morning.at 10:00 a.m.
21 We need time to gather on the deferred meeting b
22 which I believe will be mostly closed.
We do not want to 23,
talk about specific cases.
That will be a meeting in which 24 we deal in succession with a straight forward matter of 25 l adjudicatory matters that are appropriately closed.
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
3 70 i
C0fefISSIONER BRADFORD:
If I am the only person 2
with one or more meetings on Tuesday morning, I can find out 3
if I can move those around a little bit.
.s 4
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Will you let Sam know?
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
5 j
6 CHA1HMAN HENDRIE:
If Peter can juggle those 7,
R 7
meetings, Sam,. I would. move OGC's meeting on pending cases X
g a
to Tuesday morning, e.s.
Does that turn out to ci COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yg in be Category I cases or the other?
E
{
11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Both.
The aim is to go down the it g
II list of impacted. cases and see what the practicalities are.
(
5y 13 I just do not see that is a, practical public discussion.
Do
=
l T4 you?
2 15 MR. BICKNIT:-
No.
i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:.
In that case, could we just f
16 d
17,
agree to close that meeting and vote to close?
z.
lir 18 All in favor?
5 19 (Chorus of ayes.)
2n CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So ordered.
Whenever we hold 21 that meeting, it will be closed.
22 I think Peter's comment that the body may remain
()
23,
but the brain gets mushy is valid.
WF may already be there.
O 24 Sam, if you will lead us into the affirmation, we 25 will then go onto better things.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
71 1
This meeting is adjourned.
1 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
3 to reconvene at the call of the Chairman.)
s 4
=
5 5
f' 6.
g a
r g
{
E c1 c
9 i
h 10-
!.!.E.
{
11 ir y
iz a
4 d
Ig 2
E 14 a
E 15 t
if 16 mi G
17-
"z.
ti la b
19' 2a 21
(_)
22 23,
s 24 "I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the
- 3 v7 s COMMISSION MEETING
\\
in the matter oft Discussion of Revised Licensin g Procedures Date of Proceeding:
March 5, 1981 Docket liumber:
Washington, D.
C.
Place of Proceeding:
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the-file of the Commission.,
Marilvn Nations Official Reporter (Typed) h
/
e Of ficial Reporter (Signature)
I l
l l
.