ML19350B545

Unofficial Transcript of 810310 Meeting in Washington,Dc Re Revision of Licensing Procedures.Pp 1-57

ML19350B545
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/10/1981
From:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML19350B546	List: ML19350B545 ML19350B547 ML19350B548
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8103200834
Download: ML19350B545 (59)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:s 1.- g NUCII.AR REGULATOR'? COW.!SS2CN ( ( i In ti:a.%tter cf: DISCUSSION OF REVISED LICENSING PROCEDURES i l ( m. MarcIt la, 1981 pgggg 1 thru 57 Am. Washington, D. C. m v-\\ 0; 4' G~ o I 8 gg -11 7 g ?d&m Cu / ru ALDERSOX^'t REPORT 1.YG e 40 0 Virgir.ia Ave., S.*J. Nashi..g cr., C. C. 20024 .alachc=a: (202) 554-2245 8 103200834 AT

s ATIONS 1 1 UNITED ST TES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ++ + l 4 DISCUSSION OF REVISED LICENSING PROCEDURES = 5 +++ b 6, Nuclear Regulatory Commission g l Room 1130 R 7 1717 H Street, Northwest g Washington, D. C. j 8, Tuesday, March 10, 1981 i d d 9 i The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p. m. E 10 5 BEFORE: g 11 3 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman of the Commission j 12 3 j VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner y 13 I l PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner = E 14 ' h JOHN A. AHEARNE, Commissioner 2 15 5 ALSO PRESENT: T 16 LEONARD SICKWIT, JR., General Counsel i 17 l ALAN ROSENTHAL TONY P. COTTER y 5 18 VIC STELLO y EDWARD J. HANRAHAN E 19 DAN DON 0GHUE 5 JOHN H0YLE 20 NORM HALLEP BILL OLMSTEAD 21 HAROLD DENTON HOWARD SHAPAR 22 ! WILLIAM J. DIRCKS MARTIN MALSCH 23 + ++ 24 f 25 l I Al r1FDC.AN DFpn9 TING rnMP ANY INC

_.c -m Zik

q i=?

C:* :*.

h. ~[.]

=u hi =,

== C- =.!!.9 -5.5 .es.: s.. ~~ DISCLAIMER ~l[] Eis E=i This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on R+5 / C. P/ in the '~7 Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. The ~ meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

== The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. g.s: .m '"~. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or infomal =s- ='~:- record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or

== beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument + g=. contained herein, except as the Comission may authorize. ii p =- js; e- 'bi

fE.

?":= f:f -W b I.'.'...[ E.'.55 ~ REiri ~ g: bf.I. - n=u khh EE 15.5.# n=: ~5 ' i a'

q

..EE

C?i::

==:..

2 1 _P _R _O _C _E E _D _I _N _G _S 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Ever since John Ahearne started the 3 practice of Seeing if he could split the anvil. block at the 4 beginning of each meeting, I found I admired that enormously, and e 5 I intend to continue the practice. 3 ] 6, The Commission meets this afternoon to continue its R 7 discussion of revised licensing procedures in an attempt to X j 8 reduce some of the impacts that seem to be apparent on plants in d 9 the licensing process. 10 l In this series of meetings on the revised licensing z i = i j 11 l process, we were progressing through several memoranda listing R I y 12 the various possible steps to speed the process, make it work = m: 13 more efficiently, and so on. We had reached a session where we 3= =g 14, were discussing what might be done to expedite a case moving b E 15 forward from the stage at which the staff has published its final ax j 16 supplement to the safety evaluation report, from that point w i 17 until the case actually goes into the evidentiary hearing. And wz 18 there was discussion of standard schedules, of seven months, =w I 19 five months, other times, assorted steps, procedures and so on R 20 that would go on in that time. 21l We left the matter finally by throwing it back across 22, the table to primarily the counsel's office, together with I 23 others interested and knowledgeable in the process, and to come 24 l back to us with some discussion and recommendations on things i 25 that we could do to help'this area. IA

Bh- .=

A.---

e4 o 3 1 With that sort of introduction, let =e ask the General 1 2 Counsel's office to please pick up the discussion and carry us 3 forward. 4 MR. PICKWIT: Fine. We have had meetings with 5 representatives from CELD and the beards, and we have ecce up e I k j 6 with a schedule that is designed to achieve the objective that -n R 7 you asked us to achieve > which was to cut two =cnths frc= the --- M j 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: To get a couple of =cnths out of d d 9 that process, yes. z. O 10 MR. BICKiiIT: Right. !Iow, in order Oc do that we z={ 11 contacted as many people who are currently involved directly in R y 12 the process as possible, recognizing that our office has nc: = 5 13 ' been. And what we have is a schedule that we feel will d0 :ta: = 14 job. + &z 2 15 First of all, I should say, it is not put forward as x x T 16 a recc== ended schedule. I think probably sc=e in our group would 3w 6 17 reco==end it, sc=e in our grcup might have some reservations w. x 18 about'it. It is put forward as a suggestien of what must be =5 } 19 done to get to the objective set. M i i 20 Moreover, it is not meant to be exclusive of other 21 - recot=endations that have been made by the various me=bers of 22 these' offices in the previous set of meetings. We are going to 23 L tell you what assumptions it is based on, we are going ;c give 4 24 [ you sc=e additional recc==endations that all of the offices i 25 agrce or' at least have no obj ections to'. But there are various q i m a I L

4 i i proposals on the table which are still on the table, and we don.'t 2 mean to exclude them by going forward in this area. 3 Now, the schedule that we are proposing is based on a 4 number of general assumptions. One, it will require a number of = 5 rules changes, which we will go through. It will require some 5 6 resource adjustments which will ensure that there are no ho?.d-ups R R 7 at the board levels for want of resources, or at the staff. legal X j 8 or staff technical levels for want of resources. d d 9 It is also based on the assumption that there will be ioy 10 strong instructi.ns to tue boards on the order of what Tony has E_. E 11 suggested in his policy statement, or some variant thereof. And <k y 12 it is also based on the assumption that things will keep moving = m g 13 throughout the process, and that when the SSER comes out on TMI = 2g 14, issues, that activity with respect to other issues will not await 5 l 2 15 I that, that it may be necessary to go to hearing on other issues az j 16 b efore then, it may be necessary to have discovery before then. w b' 17 The idea is that the process will keep moving through 5 5 18 on other issues while this'particular schedule runs its course. =H 19 Now, I think the easiest way to proceed is to look at M 20 ; the first chart, which is attached to the memo I gave you, 21 because I think it is. important to understand exactly where we 22l are in terms of how long hearings generally take and what l i 23 assumptions we'are giving to the Congress and what assumptions 24 l you had before you at the last meeting. I 25 l The first line, the schedule suggested by past J

5 1 experience, shows a total of 13 months from the start of hearing, 2 from the SSER to the initial decision. 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That is past experience frcm 4 what years? e 5 MR. SICKWIT: '70 to the present. It has to be 5 j 6 understood in the context that those hearings were conducted R 7 without the same sense of urgency that we now have, because at M j 8 that time licensing was not on the critical path. d d 9j So, the fact that the hearings have been lasting that i l oy 10 L long does not mean that the assumptions being given to the E E 11 Congress are unrealistic. I do think some elements of those R -{ 12 assumptions, however, are optimistic under present conditions. E 13 The 3evill Report assumptions show five manths frcm I i g _ 14 - SER supplement to hearing, and as you see, seven to eight conths I wz i 2 15 frc= the start of the hearing to' the board's ' decision. s a 16 The schedule that you had before you through Howard's g s 6 17 , reading of it at the last meeting is a schedule that comes out xz 5 18 in total pretty much in the same place, but it is based really A} 19 on a dif' erent set o assu=ptions. It is based on the assump-f c M 20, tions that the rules are going to ce followed and not exceeded, 21 b ut not lagged behind. And that shows seven months from the SER 22, supplement to the start of hearing, four months from the beginring i 1 n 23 ' of the hearing to the decision. j 24 ! COMMISSIONER AREARNE: How much time is in there on 4 3 25l the assumption for the length of the hearing itself? I WLfisGFr%YWP' j

e d. m. ] 9/.Q.. Q T.

• ".W'?.".*.

L e. g ...r,.e.=.... ^ W u 2 . e' e g, m.e.

• b. o.

3 g b..o. A o.* a.

• e..c. *. y n.

=.w a. a t .. 4 e. g-. 'a a..P a n o. t nen js. v w s. wa p w. .P.t . a. ... m.e. =, %..z, . 6 A a., .s e..s ~a y.syvw we e e.. *..>. a. eweennaA n,. e, ~..%.w=, 3 ~ e. r a..e. -.m 2 vw f .v wa I

1. P

"..".."a.a. -^".*.".a~, .S.". # l dana.n.di.n.g~ C.". W.". a." a,. VCu a"a '

• C 2..#.". e,

o a".". ** 4 q .v .w e 5 43 D "Cy" C S a. d *. v* C "a*. ~..".a. S a. ". a. ". e. "

a..#

."i s - ^ ". *. *.

• d.* W ".

".O .# # ". a. -,"...".S, ~^

• e

-v. n f9 r - d .D." * " *w S a. - ~ ^v " a. -.# /' O u a." a. C C k..* ".e a '. *. k. a .#^ u" ...C ".. *..". S.. ' '. .#5

• e 6

C", w e4 _n - - ".. "... = " a..o.' '."1

• s "asad r.

."v u. n,, 7 "a. a.'.* s -

• C.

n" a a. a,.*..*.. a. - b..o ~. ~..k. a. we . ~. 8 8 rules that aren' "C11Cwed presently, and in Cu" v' ew "e o.../ n t .4 t E. 9 Can't b e expecter' :C be 'C11Cwed. 2. i P d

• • ~*?""

I "'CT;^~~~ a. n 10 w.y.p=e= he:= ^."'. ^.% :. " a,, s-' mm n v- ~ ,~~.-v u .pn,, u p..c ~~~~--"

• I i.

i ~- w. C.d e.4 - =. 9

n ll

..w. n. 4,.

• b. a.

d.e.4 *

• E.1 Ag w.

w w 4 1 s 3 /, .r.3.. 3 ?. (v* *.". A'.. r'*h.. 2 *. 8.q e4 ~.W.+ .4 .a -S Z n. C o---"'"~ w'." = 13 C O '"3" C C 7 0 a" n n".". ^'.:"< - ~C, "os> - b a "., --> "-"s -- ~ = 'J: d y. e. A.4X 3, e.e. a m e n. g

• emm..

v sy 4 1 i I i N i c T o m. w...- w 4.e. g~.a 4 -w s lJ M.Q... Q T.,^w *'b"4'?. ".. w3. s- ^ .e s .a 5,... v .g.... w.. . a lll* ]g .cy o, m. e.d.dy 8 .e.,

a. g a. 1 g A n d b.. a. w a..

"an.

a. n c..e. /.. b..o. *.

.d.a., w b. n *..W. o.

• e e

g 3f i' "g 17-C w-

• s s * ^, ". ".a = " a a...

a.'.'.' ie. ". a.

a. "<.' '. '.

^^

• ..a.a.

.' c. ". o. w a. w.o. J ~ ww v w i w j M . o M C n *... s O...M. d u.g. M. O... O. . a. O.. s. O..e.. N... a. .a-.. .v OM

o 18

• O a@N-2,_. - g a

.C l . ".. ". * -, o.d o ". ..-a..". C." ". ". 1. 19 ' ..".a. n' "y " a. n d'. x a.r~a.s da C w".. - ^, n a. ~" r . w s v y w

• a 7*

s.w a. d a g m. 3..o ye d e #.#,

• b. m..e.

4 ]Q j g A A.4

• 4 e. m.o.l
• ye
• m n *..b. 3 b.

s" e n .3 -a a v. v.~. .A n. h..ds. y n.. - e p.*. h. 3, W h.4 a b. .a 'wQ. A *. W A. Wawa. S.q 'r*. n. d. d - ow mv ]. I h.c.ef a. p.a b...J a.

• g d.

.A q

a. 4

• b.6.,

.=.=.e.e.. h. 3 4.e. a.a.b.a. 4. v.' a. t

May, g b.g*.

ga a ]j .a g. iv v g Aw

b. $.

a.

• O.,

O ...a.'.'O. .3. g*.. *. ***- ".".. 3." a" v.. a.. '. a. "a O

• ~&

w. a ...a. " 4.a.3 a. . a O. .y C a.y=. a C *o *m. a...

b..c.e.'s.

• b..g
• w o. a 1 4 ~.=.4 m..g i.1., ad*7.4 a n.

, n, 9, 24, 4 og C,oA o.we .,=,C uCe.u a j. o. . y a s f 1 a..w. p A,,w,.1 a.

• h. E*.

4.d 7 7. C., ., a, .=.=.en..b. S. ^ *

• w. v3

~a w. v M E I f l Af N C"QCAM D C*c A grT*f Mr= m u g,1 yy g y r=

7 11 It is the nature of this particular form of adjudication 2 that you simply cannot predict all the things that can happen, 3 and initially we constructed a schedule that would have run from 4 start to finish in ten months, and after we started talking about l g 5 it we pretty much came to the conclusion that if we proposed it, 9 6 we couldn' t at the same time advise you that it would actually R 7 run in ten months. Nl 8 So, we decided that if we wanted to propose something d d 9 that would run in ten months, we had better come up with a i O 10 l schedule that was slated to run in eight months. z I = 1 j 11l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You are just saying that it is in 3 y 12 the nature of this process that it is extraordinary that things 5 13 move faster than guideline schedules or suggested schedules, and a 14 rather ordinary that they move more slowly? 2 15 MR. BICKWIT: That is right. g f 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And you figure if you lead this duck e p 17 into the wind about two months, why, there is a reasonable chance M E 18 to come out around ten for most cases? 5 { 19 l MR. BICKWIT: That is right. l 20 Now, the problem in designing this schedule is that it 21 really is designed to deal with two kinds of situations. You 22, face two kinds of situations in responding to the impact problem i 23 ' over the next couple of years. i 24 The near term situation is one in which the SSER is 25, coming out approximately a month after the final revision of the i l AI M CDC Akt DCD ADT1 Af f* P A W D A A f V I Alf

8 1 FSAR, so that the applicant's response to Three Mile Island . o.c.- o..w_ s-a.c.c.....s o. .,.a. un 4., a w,,m,. 2 -, .w 2 .._ a,..,,, .4 - w

4...

v -..w.. a v 3 around its evaluation of that response. 4 Down the road, with respect to licenses which are e 5 expected to issue in calendar year ' 83, you will have a very ea 4 3 6! different situation. You would expect the final revision of the e -n 7 FSAR to be completed in the fairly near future, and there the wnj 8' SSER will be coming out a substantial period of time after the 1 J y 9l applicant's response is known. z b. 10 ! In a situation like tha:> there is all kinds of use z i = i g 11 that can be made of the intervening time, and you can have some 3 o.' a c u.~ a o ".~. a. n ~..* o n p * *.c..* c a. . "..a " ".. a..*., s c. ". a.. w.". a.... ". a. 6 12 w. u g = \\ 13 SER comes out there 1. not nearly as much to do as there is to do = rM 14 after the near tern SE. are ceming out. -b 0 15 ' 2. ~. 5. 4 n P.. w.a..* s ' a_ c.'. ". e s m^ u-- a s o.' ". r..' u o.* ^.... ". a. f ua= -" m....

• s s.' +.. ".. a s." a_ c. a_.* " a d-16 a.*sas

- s o m-a_ o.". k. e ' a. 'a 's. ". a.. ".. a. e . m 3 A d 17 describing.he process and coni z to different conclusions than x= 18 we ha.ve co=e to. The letters rec. ved by the Cct=ission are =w h 19 l really, as I understand then, dealing with that second situation. = 20 l That second situation is an easier situation. u 21 ! This schedule is designed to deal with the hard i 1 22 ' situation. It is also.a schedule that deals with the easier one 1 23 also. I don't think it has to be varied significantly to deal 24 ; with the easier situation. I think in the easier situation we I 25j s' us., k.ava. =..' o ~.... a. c o a..#.# d e.. a. . ". a*.,

• ~., c a. "ea.

. ". a.n .4.. ..".a_ ^ At nFDCU"iM DFD ADTIMt* FAM D A MV INF

9 1 hard situation. 2l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It might even make eight. 3 MR. BICKWIT: It is possible. Now I would like to go 4 through the details of it and give you some idea of what kind of 'e 5 assumptions it is based on with respect to each of the steps. nN 8 6: On the first step, going from the SSER to the end of e R R. 7 discovery within 25 days, and here -- this is chart No. 3 -- here I .n E 8I we a:e comparing it to the schedule that Howard read out at the n d 4 d 9j last meeting. z i E 10 l MR. SHAPAR: That schedule was the minimal schedule 5 2 11, that we determined was available based on past experience, and i a d 12 projecting that into the future. But "midical" should be z _= l d 13 l emphasized. ~ = \\ E 14 l MR. BICKWIT: We feel that that 25 days ending a 5 15 i discovery is practicable only if there is an end to v.andatory a = 16 discovery against the staff. 3* i M 17 i The reason for that is that if you allow mandatory E E 18i discovery against the staff anr1 there are interrogatories filed i i I 19 ! after the SSER comes out, it is unrealistic to expect that those X i n i 20 l can be answered in under a month, and I think it is optimistic 21 I to exuect that they can be answered in a month. And the round i 1 22 i of discovery under the rules can be followed by motions to 23 I compel, if the answers are considered unsatisfactory. 24l So that if you want to hang on to mandatory discovery 1 25j agaiist the staff, we feel that you would have to slip these dates .i I At nERSON RERORTING COMPANY. INC.

10 I by at least another month. 2 The next item is revised contentions. What we are 3 asking be done is that the revised contentions be filed at the 4 same time discovery ends, and we feel that is realistic, though = 5 ticht. 5 6 We would then suggest a prehearing conference within R R 7 14 days of the filing of those contentions. I think in all cases K j 8 it ought to be kept in mind that when these numbers read, for dn 9 instance, 25, that is the day on which the act must be done, and 5 10 you should anticipate about five more days before a filing placed E j 11 in the mail is going to arrive at the Commission or is going to j 12 be actually served on another party. At least that as what the = 13 rules provide for, and apparently it is realistic. = l 14 So that we are asking that that conference be held 5 2 15 really ten days after parties receive those revised contentions, az j 16 and the Commission receives them. d i i 17 l That parallels the rules. We feel the rules are very N 5 18 tight on this score, and so what we are proposing is a tight =6" 19-schedule, even though it doesn't make any changes with respect to R 20 the rules. 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But may make a substantial 22 change with respect to practice. i 23 MR. BICKWIT: I am sure it does. 24 l The very major change from the schedule, based on the 1 25 ; rules, is that we are asking for a ruling on the contentions ten i l ALIV L

I.? l [ l .A.S *f3 g#*a.w w h..a *. m e..n..em..- a...- A. 43 .b.a. l 4 ya. 8...#

• 8 2 1 1 "g

~. ^....e # M. a. - a. d.

• ". a.

l w 2 g e

• 4 e.c

n. #

.m. e l.d e.$.=.# w e..

• k.. a.

h. a..e. n.k. p

e. A,

.d.e. .#..a

• g b.a..e.

yp n.o.w. a. d. g 3 . y yv.w sp v.o ~. a. A a. n-. a. A. ~. s. s. 3 ~. u. a. 4o .gu.. a..- a. y a. y a. - a.. gg e..a. s.e e,.- ~~> - a s.--r, l 4 . " a..' s .- a b a"..' s- .o. w.-k.ab ' a.. . g".a.ss -- - f w.. ~.'. a. w.*... "..$. l a p s w '. a. a ._ e .2 4.,,.., _. , O C d.4 _,

c. c....... /...

as 5 .a.6 -. 4 s,w.,s a.. CU,j _,,. 4 s.

• • b i
• -4

.a A.,,4.. O.,*_-,*.4_- .._** S a. 6 . C U _. m.. 4 - 'l C.-.a._ a.. 4. a.

• b. *- - r _

f.--*-

• • 6

"-**--*~'*J 4 w. i a t n q. 7 da. 4. 3.4 3 4 g.3. 4. ~ .c.o -... a. .a. w T ..w.4 r*. 4 1 .w w yv.1A. a. .a. op w ..w.4. y ..S w l l W i M i 3 g d.4.c.c.4C ". ' *. .O maka. * * ^ s a. .d a. "..# s.# "...s .#.. * ". a. 2 w^ ".. C.# ..# - a W a. .us y .t w a A. a., u,. ..u..s.e.-x.4. 4.e

p. e. a.., a..

t 9 M a n. a. s e h a. s.u,.n. A. . n. -..u. a. - ~ ~s u. .u a a u e Z.. 1 l os, -a. s.. ". a. .a. X.. ^ "s..' a. a 10 .ye g, . g.a.r.y. . u.wa a..n. 4 a. g. w e. a. a-.,... Z d..' s" - ^ s.#. # g ))

7. 4.r. a g 43 a"s.

.w. .C ' ^ r k. 2. '.".a. = =..# a..-*...

• a. s ". " s "._- 2.- */

4 ^- yv .s <3 11 ". a c a ". s a.

1. ...a. y "a. - a.

. *. - u

• ....". e.- a.

w.*. ". *.. y" -- a..c. ". C " 3."... a. 3 g . w .'"w e P. =. x c'.'.' ' ". e ".a. .'.-"a." 23 -d 13 ".. a... *. I- *.a.- '. C '. ' d. ^ s a a3 g4 g...w. . a. g - a. g.

,w

. h. m. .#.4 7 4.. 3 o.r . s. e.. 4. m e..w. Wa..s. a. .s.e. 4. -..w. 3.. e w w y .. w j .....y t M 2 'a t p 35 ~ a. g. 4 - n.,.

u. a.

.e.4 1 a. A. a. As,g .a.r ~. a....k. a.. A.a. s. 4 4. e. c n n n..e.. a..n. ~. 4 n..e. s. n a =.. w i I W I t 3 1 y. n n.i a. .n.

• h. a.

7* a.i s...a. t. .m.e. d ..k. a. n a. n = a. 9 w.e y. jg k.m..a..

• g.7 p.a. A.

.m g n..i -w-a..= m ma a y a A C }7 y g.*.* c u3 .-a. c e. 4 4.... o. w...o.. yszg ]g

r..e g. o.r 2.11,

..w. 4.,g. 4. d.-.a..7-4.e

r. a. - y we..

.c wa ..j .... 3 . v v. s. 1 w w 4 m w 4 -.9 4

• 4.

l 2 ~e we

• ka

1. 414 e = g ^# -ag*4=ame he kweb mba 73 3 9 l

gg 2-*'-*# 3 6 yp ~~ * * # -~D--

• ---**D

~' M "a. .'s...=... c.~.- w=-./ s-(" ^ 20

a.. d

."..a. . a. a. k...* a. s *. =.#.#. ".a. -a. -.a.. -a s w I l l -w. u a. d e a 4 7 4.r. a.. i - 21 t i i l =.4A ..3 22, ...a.. ...m s. - b n. ... d a. s..- e. d v.n 2,...w. 2..

4. 2

,3 r.....2.4 w 4w 1 t I i 23 " y...' C. 4 - a.,.. c". .'.e4, . '. '..". a..-a. = =. =. - *. - ....a.....-..s-d ^' --. s w l w. i 1 24 w.v.yr..eS er.4 ;. a.u.r_.4.;.u.r.

v. u.

C .4,na,, .w... a a. 4a..o r i 25 as s "-y..* o n. u" * ~. - ". a. C c... =..r..*...." -a. s.". ^ ' d s w '.'.'.." =. 3 =. S. i r I l l. L 2 ruua a l.

12 1 MR. BICKWIT: That is right. As you will see in a 2 later chart, we are prepared to recommend that they should change, 3 but this schedule is not hinged on that. 4 The next item I would like you to look at is the e 5 beginning of the hearing, which occurs 15 days after the filing h j 6 of testimony. Again, that is considered to be a very hard R 6 7 position on the part of those proposing this schedule.

j 8

Now, having said that, let 's come back to summary dd 9 disposition. It is anticipated that there will be very few i* 5 10 l summary disposition motions on this kind of a time frame, that l 11 l the decision of the litigator in this kind of situation is that n j 12 i when you are that close to a hearing you may as well try the = j 13 issue in almost any circumotance. So that we would not expect l 14 ! many summary disposition motions under this schedule. 2 15 If there were any, I think that day numoer 55 really g 16 ought to be adjusted to c0, because to ask that summary w g 17 ! disposition motions be filed immediately after contention rulings. 5 N 18 I think, is unrealistic. But as I said, I don't anticipate many 5 19 of these motions, and where you actually put those summary n 20 disoosition items on the schedule I don't think is terribly 21 significant, tecause they are really not running on the critical 22 path. We are assuming a total overlap between the filing of i 23 testimony and the summary disposition practice. We would 24 assume that if someone does move for summary disposition, they 25[ would put the fruits of that mc'. 'on into their testimony, and if ALDERSOL REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

O + 13 I 1; somebody is responding that would wind up in the testimony of the l 2 respondent, and ultimately the decision would occur after the 3 filing of the testimony. I 4 Now, the beginning of hearing under this schedule would e 5 occur on day 95, and we are plotting 40 days for the hearing. 39 j 6I That is in line with the assumptions that are being used both R 7 with respect to the Sevill submissions and the ELD schedule. That s j 8 is a realistic assumption only if the cententions are relatively d I 0 9! few. z I eg 10 If you have many contentions, our view is that you j 11 can't hold a hearing in that length of time. It may be possible a y 12 to stagger the hearing, but I think it should be understood that 5 g 13 l a very heavily contested case is unlikely to have a hearing that l l 14 l 1s conducted in that length of time. b 2 15 We discussed the length of time on proposed findings j 16 and Tony Cotter had suggested that it might be advisable if

• ^

i d 17 ' findings were not staggered, but were all required to be made 5 5 18 simultaneously, and no write-up reply would be required. These m e h 19 are tightening assumptions, and under those assumptions we think n 20 this is a realistic period of time. 21 As far as 'the decision is concerned, Appendix A calls 22 f for, as you know, a 35 day decision period as a guideline for I 23. the boards. That is generally considered unrealistic in most 24 quarters, and we are not suggesting that it really can be done. i 25l We are suggesting two months. That is not what the licensing i I l Al F9PEtCl3M QPDAQTING (" AMP A NY INC

o 14 1 boards originally thought was reasonable, but with expended 2 resources it was felt that -- and by that I mean sufficient 3 numbers of clerks to ' support boards -- it was felt that it was 4 possible. = 5 Putting that all together, you get to eight months, and 5$6 I have told you what we think that really means. Rg 7 Turning to the next chart 3 j 8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Let me ask you a couple of d = 9 questions about this one. Y 10 Do ycu make any assumptions about whether a board 3j 11 member who is running a proceeding like this is sitting on a "4 12 another one at the same time? E=d 13 MR. BICKWIT: We make the assumption that therc will 5 l 14 never be a circumstance that that board member will be holding 2 15 things up. y j 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Is that a reasonable assumption ^ l g 17 even? 5 18 MR. BICKWIT: What we have asked be done is that we 5 19 have asked Tony to see if he can trork that out with his present 8n 20 complement. If not, to suggest to the Commission how many ~ 21 additional board members are needed in order to get that done. 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, there was a recommendation for 23 some increased staffing in there. It was two and two, if I 24 remember. 25l MR. COTTER: It was originally four additional Al MFDGAN DFpnDTIM( EnMPAMY INF

15 1 lawyer-chairmen, which I would modify to say two lawyer-chairmen 2 and two environmental members, both of whom would be full time, 3 in addition to those frozen. 4 MR. ROSENTHAL: That has considerable implications, s 5 particularly in terms of the part time members. Many of the N i j 6I part time technical members are on university faculties, and in R 8 7 the past at least the scheduling of hearings has been done with n R l 8 a view towards their convenience, scheduling them over the d 9 summer or during school recesses or the like. And that is one I 10 of the things, I think, that will have to be focused on, is 3l 11 whether it is realistic to expect that part time members who are a y 12 engaged in other pursuits, such as teaching, will be both able 5 g 13 and willing to drop whatever else they are doing and come into i 14 l the hearing or at the point on the schedule that the hearing is m=e t E E 15 called for, or, for that matter, to be available for heavy a= J 16 participation in the decision writing process. ez d 17 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Let me try and get a better a 1 { 18 feel for the scope of this. First of all, most of the hearings P 19 that this is a problem are in large measure underway. So, you 5 20 are talking, in order to get them all sorted out, about replacing 21 existing board chairmen with other chairmen so as to minimize 22 the conflicts. And then some of those replacements will, in LB 23 fact, be chairmen who have never tried a case before. 24 l MR. COTTER. This is a real barrel of eels. You are 25, talking about in the next 12 months ten operating license cases I I i AI N F D M M D FD A D"f"1 M t" F r%f D. A M V f M f"*

,a ( _e ) and five construction permit cases that are essentially ready to 2 go to hearing, either all at once or in pieces, so that you will 3 exp ect a final decision within approximately a 15 month period 4 frca now. That is 15 cases. 5 There are another 12 operating license cases that are e An j 6) waiting to go. There are another 5 or 6 totally unscheduled R 7 construction permit cases. And then, in the shcrt term, there .n 8 8l are 17 what I will call miscellaneous cases that involve spent n d i 9i fuel pools or license amendments, or a variety of things. The 5 10 17 are ready to go in the near term, in the next 12 months. z= j 11 You are talking a total active caseload for the board 3 d 12 now of 62 croceedings. z ,= j 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY-Those are proceedings for = T I 14, which board members have been assigned? -b l j 15 i MR. COTTER: To which board members have been assigned, e ~ l j 16 ! yes. Some of them have near term scheduled hearings, ar. ' the A i .h 17 l immediate 12 to 15 month problem is to schedule approximately a= l 5 18 l 28 to 32 hearings, get those hearings completed and get decisions = l E 19 l on them. 3 l n 20 j COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Tony, that is the picture if i I 21 ! we adopt this schedule, or that is the picture as you see it l, 22 : right now? 23 MR. COTTER: That is the picture regardless of what i 14 l you do. I am sorry. That is the picture based on the staff's t 25, estimate of when it is going to have staff documents ready that Af N E* D CA M D E " D A D*T*f h lt"* F8 kJ D A A f V 1 Afr

17 1 will permit these proceedings to go ahead. 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Then what is the level of 3 participation of part time board members, or what fraction of 4 those boards in toto is composed of part time members? = 5 MR. COTTER: We have 39 part time members and every cne H j 6 of them but three have some involvement in a proceeding. I don't Rg 7 know if I can be more responsive than that. A g 8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: To what extent do you see that d = 9 problem that Alan raised as arising to a point where it is going 5 10 to cause a lot of scheduling difficulty? E_ I 11 MR. COTTER: I can't tell you at this point. What I ( 12 have got to do is, after I get some indication from the 5 5 13 Commission whether I am going to have to deal with the situation m l 14 with what I have or with some additional number of resources, E 2 15 then I am going to have to start from scratch and look at the E' j 16 scheduling problem. And what I would anticipate doing, with the e d 17 assumptions that I have made in trying to neasure needed dz 18 resources, are, one, that 2 will give first priority to operating = 19 license and construction permit proceedings that I anticipate 20 will go to hearing in the next 12 months; two, that I will put 21 at least -- that I will put on each one of those proceedings a 22 full time lawyer-chairman; and three, that I will put at least 23! one full time either environmental or engineering-physicist 24 member on each one of those boards. And then I will take the 25 balance of the 45 cases and schedule them in. a

.-___m __.-m 7.. ] .n. u. 4 * .A c a. s .e.c.

1. e.4 4 3 1.e. o 3.

a..e r.i e 3

3... - a..c...

.... ~ .a y. i B 2 a*w c u* w.h.a*. w w^ u.' d "* d^..a. 1*. a a * *..* *. ".' a..- "**.*.. s C a. s *. *. * *, y y.. 3 _a..s w a..= ~. ". - - ". e s *..* ^... *. ~ 4 1 1 a. ' a, - k.*.. -. ^ a d. d. 4 C C.'".4.*. S. ^."s ~4 G ". '.'IS ".* v. - "4"..- "a. - a. g" v ". a v . w y 5

a...v'.

0... a.... a.'

. -" e. s w h.a.... w. a. - a s ~.'.3.. ". a..a...*. 3 s a.- a..a. '.. a. a.' ' - M g" 6 ' a d. e. w." *..".

a... v.*.- a.

.a.... a.'.* s s ".a..=., .a.- a. .".a.,-*. -n 2 7 .' G. C O'.'..r..*..- .n a. c _= " s e..j b as.* c s. a.'.'.*..3 ... a. ,n j 8 members is 15, in ter=s of pecple available to devote thenselves .e W =, 9 .' u ' l *. *...~a .- " c a.-d w a.-k. 3.".. a. a. ' aw " a. - s,. "..- a. a. _a.-a. s w z, i .i-10 a..v ' -- a...a.' - a.. *. a. s, a r.d. .# ^ " - .a.- a.

a..* *. k. e.

.. 3... a. a.. s ~.~,,... s

• e..'.=....'

1 -e. z l = 1 { 11 As a generali:atien, each beard should ha e a representati e l 4 12 e-a-a ac"k ena e' ~"ase ca a-~~'as* ~s aas'a-c s 'a " a d"~' a ad ~~ ~~ -s---- --- ~ ~- -"- -~ z ,z = 13 a c... c.'. " ". ' '.....~a -a. "e.s.".a. .*s ya.-,, ~..*.. a. ~ - a...

a.. s.

a. w = E 14 ',., c k.* ' #^ - a "a'a ca w ' * *"+ * * + "*

• a '"
  • -a -=- *-="'-

-"a

---

*--P b

-w-3tk I 15 panel. az 16 C0.'"3? 0~0". S. G ~ ~.~.'i: F... a'.-a. w a. 3.'..*.3.a..", .. r. s.* d a. a..*... w d 17 Oc using administrative law judges? a z s u ...... a. a. d. ...a. sa..* ..o-w *. ". a 18 .v.u.. c ^.

7. 7..-

v. a. s.

.hava. ~ v w =H -a- " ~ da 19 - -"a-c '"-

• a a w' *h*

"'*a O '#* c e o ' a s c'"'a' v.ar'a S -- ~a -'-> --' - " ' - a -M 20 not anticipate tha: these conversations - will bear usable fruit 21 for anywhere frcm three to six =cn:hs, a.d then I a= not clear -22 en exactly what kind of a resource that will represent. 23 "w--'e 3

• o r'e m o m s;*e >~. -

re w"-~ -a a s * * '*" ha-2 24. ' !G. CCT ER: Secause I a= not sure wha: that Office wil3 25 ') ." '... s b. - a, .. ' ar.* ."..*. 3 J l-h-

_--_-.. -. ~. - 1 h ..O L $s{; Cw. V.*.e.;

• m.;;. A r*r.e;.

aV .w ,a 4, .w a. .s.e.... a. 3 a.

e. a.

y .w - A. l. ...j 2 %. s. 4 A.?.n?, f.g 3 2. A. ... a. A .w

• 3..

.a. _gw2.a _=n.e., .2*.**.~ A'**'3 ..g g, aj e' I; .. s w.#.*.* a n.=* e 9 i, I 3 - A.d 3A.os*

h. e a 4.

o 4 e a... 3 e e c

• l r

t l! g (*v^.W..*.0.3*#'1;70 !* * ? *..* {.* ?.'.t y s..e.

o..h. 3 j. s..e. g e.r

. h. a. ..s... a. J. w .w. I e 5 .V.3.. /f*w.. . ~..#5 ~ *. * * *..'.# '4. a. ' "j *"..S* W w "w.' ' A' *.4, l' ~ ~ a

• a*

3.. 4 g - a. s ~..- a m. ~..~.a. '.r.. m.- .A. ... = W w.u - - w.,. w".- a. w w. y. j 4 g a a* s e.e..n. 3 s e. A. e a..e..s....J s s.- / . %. C.a.,.. 3 a. 1 = ,,. s.e. a..m.. ..... y .w i L t l>

• • k..-

dw 3.ao .e.s a . b..s. 9 l < M M. w..V* R.C.*.* *[7. V .".w..1[.O. 7.*.f. g g a w g; g, w. g I es 4, w ^^ .w

• A-s.e..s ;. =..s a.

4,p .VO.. bY.. _2.. C. a.

s... e.... a.

n.#.#.8. a

o. w.o.

a w w. A p- = 7 2. 'F l l 2_ A = d.e..t

• ms. I n. a.

.?.s y 4. A... a.

s. o m.

.%.s e. 4

• a.

2.= n, ? 10 ?..s.g . e..A - a. g. a. s. 4 s k.._s. e se a.. e 2 .E. 6 1

• g.n.. A ~. 4*

.e.s.e a. uj .M..s w a. 2.*, 2. A. u.a. J y.s.. m w.e. A. =..e. a... e. s. a. w..,. 4 e. S l = =. e. e .e .w. i 2 II 43 m... a asA. g e. y a.e 1., %.e 4o.n. e.n e. g a. n, v a..e.. * ~,

a. g. a..n.

.4 }} =. w..k. a. ega. e. a. se ..j j y .y y ..w g l ..W

==

• A.

ys*' 3. a. 2 .*a. .a. 13 .gs. =.>.a. (w'.9 9 4,. a. e.r =.>.a. A s..e a.e m. s a..a. s.y... A. e-a.. w = s e2 g ff j u

a. - * *.

• a. d.

m..e.,e,. e. a.

a. m, a..e e..

• • s h*

i, f 3 i .. a n..e a. A ..e. ya.a. e.. w w..s .O.w *. m.e".*.O. A "*

• O t.7..
• Ve
• e

. k. _m., .a $

e..c..

• a

.e - A. 6 j g la u br u _a_ f, f E a. ., E o..s

a. a.

m.,..s._A.

-....e.. . =.... V s_... y. I8 W. .O ._sA...a .,, _ 3 m. n 1 2 ga t,.* y . %.a. p s a g. 4 s..e. n,,.e'- %...s a.e. s s A s.e..n.z. m s. e..a. . 2. y.. A m..a .e s. ..a.

n. e.

t e 6 3 e. g...- - g

d 3

ll 6X gg 1.' ^. a..*.S.*.~; * ~ **"*..'.# C.".'".*.".*.a.'.. i, . = Sa . a. m.e A 9 h 1

• e

^#

o..k..w a. s.

,.,w..,.3.

• $.. h. a. *
• s s a.. w.

gg .VO.. =.a. ..m.-.. r w. p..w g M .. A.:i r.

v. a_ $.

G .vV.*..e.e,, v.6.;..=.

• i

+ w . w...

3..

%...z. o. c.a. 244 s.ga.A

• h. g*.

.e. h,,a. e.. b a. a. s

• M a.

(*^< 21 .VO.. s n w. t. .f A. 4 a..s. 4. m. e. . h. g.

• h.s

.a

s.. 3 3.s %.*.*.*..

4 .j. 3 g .h.d.... t.

a..e.

3,. w yw a... 3w.. 1 5 5 .i ...? A i a***v & vv .:=.q f= *t;;.. 'J. ..n.e r.y. ga. m. -. e. a. w a. i w w. - - .v.. .s. a 3.. s.e.

a.,.

..a .,c.. a. A.., ) w e,..s., u p. w. a. 3,,... .s e. a ai m-a.. .w 1$! k .e. ~..A.t a gi -. a. y..a. s. 3 - se en .a 4 A. a.,. 12.s.37 - a.= 4.,. e e.r. a. s se. 3 y.s3 4.e. .w 4-s- ... a ygy .c.a y.w*. w t

• L sVa k'

20 1 very complicated cases usually. i 2 MR. COTTER: Well, my understanding of the Atomic 3 Energy Act was that that was -- they could have done that from i I 4' the beginning, and they elected not to. s 5 MR. SHAPAR: No, the Atomic Energy Act gives the N 3 6 Commission the authority in Section 191 to use either an R 7 administrative law judge or a three man board. Al 8 MR. COTTER: That is correct, and they set up the d

[

9 option because they felt that the option was important to the 3 10 kinds of proceedings that this activity conducts. _E j 11 MR. DIRCKS: That gets back to the questiori of what do S g 12 ' you want out of the hearing, a technical review or a procedural = h 13 l assurance, and I think that is the basic question we were asking = i z i g 14 ' some time ago, h E is ! CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: This is a question which comes up g-I g 16 both with regard to resources down the line and the discussion of M d 17 l. w Len's paper, and also the question of ALJ's substituting for x 18 boards. What I would like to do is remind you that what we are P { 19 about here is to look at possible steps to tighten the hearing n 20 process, with an aim to pulling for at least four cases on down 21 the line a bit, being able to pull a couple of months out of the 22 i nominal schedule. We need to get a couple of months back from 23 the hearing process, and we need to save those two months from 24 the Cc= mission's post initial decision process. 25 i The point to all of that is that that will provide i l Al >~1FRCN DFPnRTINt" rnMP A NY INF

21 1 relief in terms of what are clearly going to be, anyway, already 2 fairly substantial staff impacts in pulling resources off to put 3 them on licensing in order to move cares. 4 If we don't get this time back out of the hearing e 5 process, then the problem of the impact on the staf in terms N. j 6 of other things is exacerbated. R 7 So, our aim here is to find some reasonable set of a j 8 circumstances by which we can reasonably expect, on the average, d 9 to pull two months out of the hearing process for cases that are ~ i Oy 10 on down the line. The near term cases that are already in z i = 1 g 11 hearing, about to go in hearing, some of what we do here may a d 12 apply to those cases and some may not. But primarily, at the Ec y 13 j moment we are trying to straighten out the licensing process on = i 14 ! down the line. m=awe 2 15 Now, Len has proposed, or his group has gotten together w = j 16 and put together a nominal schedule which runs eight months, and 2 i b. 17 l which he assures us will only be executable in eight months in w= 5 18 the rare lightly contested or very limited contention sort of 5 I E 19 ! case; that it is more likely to take closer to ten, but that is s l 20 ! still on the average, but that in fact achieves the obj ective. 21l And I guess he continues to feel that if you are going to make 22 ten in a fair nlmber of the cases down the line, why, you had 23 b etter couch your guidance in terms of the eight. 24 Now, he is about to get to the next page on his rundown 25 l and say, now, in order to do that schedule there are a number of i A I f75:'Dehl 7L KyrP

22 1 rule changes that you need to make, and I would like to scan 2 through those and discuss the policy statement on need for 3 expedition, and then get on to resources and some of these other 4 questions that we have j ust recently diverted off to. e 5 Len,.it seems plain enough, but go ahead and sketch it 3e] 6 out for us. R { 7 MR. COTTER: Excuse me. Could I make two comments on sl 8 schedule No. 3? d d 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. Y 10 MR. COTTER: My participation in this was subject to El 11 consulting with my board members, and two of their messages I 3 y 12 don' t think got back in time before this was printed up. And E d 13 the first is that they feel very strongly that there should not 5 \\ 5 14 ! be the restrictive time frames that there are in acting on d" k 15 summary. disposition motions, and that if the boards could act w= g 16 on those when they felt it appropriate, rather than being i d 17 l required to act on them prior to the hearing, that that could w= l E 18 ' facilitate things substantially. =H E 19 They were also concerned, in connection with summary R 20 disposition motions, that when they are filed frequently a 21 response is filed to the motion and the response contains new 22, information in the form of affidavits which, in turn, generates 23 further response, and so they could further stretch out the 24 prehearing period, and they would like to see that procedure 25l amended to give the board discretion to act on those motions when i I Al r3FDCAM DFAADTIM/ COMP ANY INF

23 I and if they see fit. 2 The second thing that they mentioned was that 3 contrary to my initial proposal that there be solely simultaneous 4 findings after the close of the hearing, that the provision for s 5 seriatum filings on the findings was beneficial, and they 0 3 6 particularly mentioned that the ability of the staff to file R 7 after the applicant and the intervenors had filed was something j 8 that they thought beneficial, because they thought the staff Gd 9 could better represent a somewhat obj ective sense of the public j i 10 l O j interest, as opposed to a particular bias in connection with the g i g 11 proceeding. 3 j 12 They also felt that the seriatum filings could be E y 13, accommodated within the time frames that are set forth here. = i 14 CHAIRMAN EENDRIE: Okay. You will tell us, then, as 5 2 15 Len checks off possible rule changes that would be needed to 5 g 16 implement his procedure -- I guess you need something about w d 17, summary disposition, then, in the procedural rules to do what you 5 5 18 have suggested?

e

{ 19 MR. COTTER: Yes. n 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: One would, in effect, strike it off 21 the guideline schedule. 22 MR. SHAPAR: No, I think a change would be needed 23 anyway. 24 l MR. BICKWIT: As it turns out, in order to accommodate l 25 i this schedule a change in 2.749 was needed, and it would be very ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYa INC.

T 24 1 ! easy to adj ust that change to that objective. 1 2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Let me just ask again another 3 question about this schedule on sheet No. 3 here. Has any 4 effort been made to find out from any of the participants in our I e 5 hearings what the impact of such a schedule would be on the A e 6; participation that they conte = plate? E 7 MR. SICKWIT: No, no effort has been made. Kl 8 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: Just to add an asterisk, Joe, d 9 to what you said a minute ago about what we were doing here, I ioy 10 agree that it would be good to squeeze any extra time out z = E 11 wherever we can on both this and obviously if there are staff - 3 y 12 resources that can be found and devoted to the problem, that is = y 13 fine, too. But I guess =aybe I don't feel the same compulsion = m i 14 ' to find four =cnths socehow in all of this. We have more or less uw 2 15 agreed that we can do something with the immediate effectiveness y j 16 rule, or our role in it, and I am all for picking up these conths. M d 17 ; But if at the end of this effort to squeeze on the z z k .m 18 process it turns out that the answer is that there are sc=e G 19 i =cnths of delay that are the unavoidable result of our activities -x 1 M i 20 since Three Mile Island, I am prepared to live with that. 21 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I have no doubt that we are 22 going to end up, in fact, with some conths of unavoidable delay, l 23 because I think some of the near tern cases are just at a stage 24 where this isn't going to help _ all that much. And for those, I 25 ' see if the Congress wanted to provide it, an only remedy to an ALDERSON REPORTING COM PLYd?7M

25, 1 impact after construction would be an interim licensing provision 2 to be exercised by the Commission. 3 The aim here, though, I think is important. If we 4 don't provide something like the framework that is being e 5 discussed here, then I think the staff will have to look at its 2n 3 6 I scheduling of the downstream plants in the context of a hearing R 7 schedule which is substantially longer. That, in turn, will move X j 8 back up closer to the present hard pressed time, dates at which d d 9 staff documents have to be completed for those cases, and just Y 10 make our sort of the next six months to a year problem that much El 11 j more intense. And, you know, instead of looking at j uggling S I y 12 l 100 people all told, or 100 and a few all told, and bringing in 5 i j 13 20 or 30 from outside NRR at the cost of various chores, if one x =g 14 is to avoid impact downstream, you will be talking about 150 or 9x 2 15 100 or whatever, and that much greater set of impacts. i ux j 16, So, in terms of the planning that we do for the w d 17 i licensing process, which means who works on what in NRR at the w = 18 present time, why, it is a rather important proposition. And we

e

{ 19 are trying to feel our way to arrive at reascnable courses with n I 20 I minimum impacts. 21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: No, I am not saying we are 22, doing the wrong thing by sitting here, but I do have the sense i 23 I that there may be some irreducible minimum of time that we have 24 to figure is going to be -- what to call it -- Three Mile Island 25 impacted licensing issuance dates off into the future, and I am l 6913 TING COMP ANY. INC.

26 1 all for getting that time down as low as we can get it. It may 2 just turn out that the costs either within NRR or within the 3 licensing schedule of getting it all the way to zero are more than 4 we can swallow. a 5 MR. BICKWIT: I should say, the purpose of this 39 j 6 exercise was to outline what those costs would be, so that the R 7 Commission would have before it an understanding of them. A j 8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That is why I had asked whether d m; 9 we had asked any of the participants what the effect of schedules z O 10 like this would be. E j 11 MR. BICKWIT: No, we haven't. We simply haven't had 3 y 12 time. 5 13 MR. SHAPAR: I agree with a couple of points that Tony ag 14 Cotter made,.and I guess I am in disagreement on one of the points E 2 15 that has been discussed up to now. 5 g 16 I agree that summary disposition motions should be M N 17 allowed at any time, and not constrained as of a fixed time 18 period. 5 { 19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But that is in the rules at the n 20 moment, isn't it? 21 MR. SHAPAR: Yes. 22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: You have to file them by a I 23 certain time. 24 MR. SHAPAR: There is a cutoff point when you can't 25 l file them. I would allow summary disposition motions to 5? filed i AI NE*DC/Md DE"DoDTim fa&JD AMV 1Mr

27 1 : at any time, and I think essentially what Tony said. 2l With respect to his comment on allowing the staff I 3 further time with. respect to proposed findings, I guess I am 4 generally sympathetic with that, but I would, because it is very e 5 much to the staff's advantage and I think the Commission's 3n j 6; advantage, and in terms of the product that the hearing board R 7 get s -- b ut if the Commission wants to pick up that time, we can s j 8 meet a simultaneous filing requirement, d d 9 The place where I disagree is the time for the initial i Oy 10 decision. There has been some discussion on it, and I don't E j 11 intend to prolong the dise,ussion very much. I still believe -- 's y 12 we are talking about a month in the schedule, the difference 5j 13 between 60 days and 35 days. a l 14 l I did go back after our last discussion to find out if h 15 l that kind of a schedule had been met before in heavily contested a= y 16 cases, and I find now that it had been, and where it had been w d 17 met was shortly after the Commission published the guidance in x= 18 i '72, '73 and '74. And to give you a few examples, Pilgrim was ? I 3 19 l a heavily contested case, and the initial decision was written E l 20 ' ~ 26 days. I don't think I need to give you many other 21 axamples, but they exist, and I will end my areech with t'lat. 22 MR. ROSENTHAL: I don't want to ccmment on that. I I 23 want to just suggest that in terms of the staggered schedule for 24 l proposed findings, I do not believe that it is possible to 25, stagger findings and have all of the findings in within 40 days I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,

28 ( or 45 days. I think that what the committee, when it met on i 2 Saturday and agreed on the uniform filing of proposed findings, 3 pr ceeded in the basis that it' would take, in many instances in 4 a heavily contested case, a party 40 days in which to get them 5 in. = Ea 8 6 Now, if you are going to have them staggered and still e 7 operate within that time period, it means that the first filers, 8 indeed all filers except for the staff, which would be coming at d d 9 the very end of the period, would have appreciably less time than i 10 that, and I just don't think it is feasible. E_ g 11 MR. COTTER: I would very much like to respond to that. d 12 I do hope that what we are doing here is trying to establish an f= = 13 envelope time by looking at all the intermediate steps. I 5 g 14 certainly do not hope that what we are doing here is establishing du 15 specific times for each one of those intermediate' steps to be 16 accomplished. If you are doing that, you are simply tieing the 3M 17 board's hands, and that would be the least desirable result you 18 could get tut of this. 5 I 19 If the board does not have flexibility tv deal --- R 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Careful. Let's not spend too much 21 time slaying straw men. I haven't sensed any inclination on this 22 side of the table to tie these dates down, whether it is just one 23 overall date for the time for the whole process, or even the 24 j intermediate ones in any absolute way. Any of this that we would i 25 go forward with as Commission guidance would be guidance with J ALDERSO_N_R_EPORTING CO_MPANYo INC,

29 1 recognition that in an individual case the board would have to 2 adapt it and so on. So, it wouldn't tie a board's hands in any 3 case, even if it were published. And there is also the question 4. of how much of the guideline schedule would appear explicitly, i e 5 I think probably some indication of what we think the X9 6 intermediate steps can be is probably useful. I don't know R 7 whether one would then propose that with regard to the findings K j 8 that the first set of parties file, I don' t know, at 40 and t'e d I n; 9 i staff at 50, or the parties at 35 and the staff at whatever, but z O I 10 what is proposed on this schedule is that the hearing ends and 3 El 11 -that it is 105 days before an initial decision issues, and I y 12 grant that some of these cases develop a whale of a record to 5 l j 13 look at. On the other hand, that is 105 days, and you know, by = x g 14 vigorous application one can go a long way in 105 days. 2 15 So, I would hope there is room in there at about that y g 16 time frame to work it out. A d 17 Let me get back and launch Len once more, for about a = 1 5 18 l the third time. This time I intend to be ill tempered with = m M 19 ! interructions. -5 n 20 Now, about the rule changes, Len, that it would take I 21 to move along on something like this. 22 MR. BICKWIT: The first would be to get rid of the 23 mandatory discovery provisions with respect to the staff. And 24 i the assumption there would be that'the staff would be strongly k 25 urged to operate so as to not prejudice anyone by that change. i i r A L D ERSO N R EPQ_RTI NG_CQ M P A%Y, __I N C,

30 m 1 The idea would be that all documents would be thrown 2 out into the public document rooms and that the staff would be 3 responsive to phone inquiries and to written inquiries when 4-possible. But you would be eliminating any right to compel the e 5 staff to respond to a discovery request that it regarded as An [ 6 irrelevant or for some other reason not deserving of their time. R R 7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Why does that save time? K j 8 MR. sICKWIT: It. saves time because if you give a right d d 9 to discovery against the staff following the issuance of the SSEE-: 10 let me take you through the example that was persuasive to us, E E 11 ' which is Bill Olmstead's example, actually. y 12 ' Maybe you would like to jus, go with it, you will do = m: 13 ; it better than I will. Go ahead. E l 14 l MR. OLMSTEAD: Essentially, a discovery process takes sz 2 15 35 days just to serve the interrogatory, which takes 10 days. w = j 16 They get the SER, there is 5 days in the mail, 10 days to frame w d 17 their interrogatories, 5 days to serve it on the staff, 14 days a= 5 18 to respond, 5 days for it to return. Then there is a 35 day ~A { 19, period that has elapsed,- but. you are not through. M i 20 l Then you go, if a party disagrees with the responses i 21 I and wishes to move to compel, or if the staff objects to the 22 ' discovery, you then go before the licensing board and consume 23 another 30 days in the objections, the responses to the objectiona 24 j and the board ruling. I 25! So that, in essence, any< discovery schedule is, in J

31 1 l reality, a 60 day period. So that if you add that on after the i 2 issuance of the SER, you have to add two v.onths to the proposed 3 schedule. l 4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Is any other discovery going on l l g 5i while that is, or would the only discovery at that point be l nn j 6l likely to be against the staff? -n R 7i MR. BICKWIT: I would answer that under this schedule ~ i i j 8 other discovery is probably going on. If the appli: ant's FSAR d 9 amendment is coming out a conth

v. fore the SER is coming out,

z. O 10 you can expect that in the 30 days following the SEE that there z= { 11 is going to be some discovery activity with respect to the i 'd 12 ' acclicant. And that would be paralleling what we have in mind z = s 13 l as this voluntary discovery process against the staff running at = M 14 the same time. b i e i P 15 l MR. ROSENTHAL: That d.scovery would have been j 16

• "**"ated much ea-a" E

i w C 17 M<.p 3 ~ u~ *s*.

• r.m..

m. y..a ~.< a-m.t3..~..

-u .a w x = 5 18 MR. ROSENTHAL: The point is, with the staff, it would 1 S i E 19 ! a'ust be initiated at the time of the SER. x 5 20 ! COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Are you assuming, Bill, that 21 l all discovery takes the form of interrogatories, then? 4 s l 22 l MR. OLMSTEAD: There are two forms of interrogatory 23 discovery under the rule, written interrogatories and deposition 24 .iscovery. We have explored the deposition discovery in the 25 meeting and = cst people thought that that was even less ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

32 1 desirable, beca'use it is resource intensive, and for the reason 2 that most intervenor parties can't afford it in any event. 3 We hava a case where the applicant has been contesting 4 the staff and the deposition discovery has been running five days e 5 per witness. E 8 6 MR. 5HAPAR: That is in an enforcement case, e R R 7 MR. OLMSTEAD: Right. Xl 8 MR. BICKWIT: The next set of rule changes we had were d = 9 designed to deal with the substantial block of time that is Y E 10 consumed in the -- to take you back to the ELV schedule, chart _z E 11, .No. 2. After you get the board, on day 2c0, after you get the R 'i 12 -board order setting the hearing, under 2.752(c) there is a right z= 13 to objections to the order from the parties, and that follows a= a 14 l with staff objections to the order, and you have a final board ww i z i 2 15 order on day 310. wx 16 The action' recommended with respect to that rule saves A y 17 those 30' days. You make the board order not subject to az 18 reconsideration. P O 19 Item C is designed along the lines that were discussed A 20 earlier today, that if there is reason to suspect that part time 21 I memberr will be -- their lack of availability will be slowing 22, things down. We did not see a problem with allowing the 23 : chairman alone to rule on prehearing matters. 24l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That_ woald include, then, 1 23, ruling on admissibility of contentions? I I N-

33 1 MR. BICKWIT: That is right. 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Could you explain a minute to 3 me, I could See that leading very quickly to any intervenor who 4 raises a technical contention, having it accepted because the 5j lawyer-chairman feels uneasy in dismissing a technical issue. e X 6 MR. BICKWIT: Well, it is conceivable. But I guess our R 7 view was under the present contention practice, since the merits j 8 of the contention are not at issue here. The question is whether d d 9 there is specificity and bases, and while there may be some 10 absurdity threshold there, it was felt that the lawyer member z= j 11 would be capable of doing this ruling. 3 y 12 Now, if you raise the contention threshold, as we are = m j 13 proposing to do, then the argument for excluding the technical-- a =g 14-for allowing the technical members not to be there is less 2 15 persuasive. 5 g 16 l Then one of the ootions that, of course, is available, \\ 17 ! and that has been put on the table is to have an administrative 5 M 18 law j udge functioning as the adjudicator with technical 2 h 19 ! assistance from whatever quarters he may need. 5 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Your rule change here would not, 21 though, preclude the enairman from -- if there was one 22. technical board member who was available -- from using the i 23 advice of that technical board member? 24 MR. BICKWIT: No, it certainly would not. 25 ; COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Along those lines, is the idea ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYm INC.

,.P.3 841

• h. 2.
• k. a aw 2 4.

2.. w, i.,.' A. .o a.

x. a.. k., a p w A a.. a.....w. a a.,. w. a.,.

a...&,a.

s ma ..w w w... w. g v. g n a...m-n u. o 4 ' gh.ia., n.n.h. a g,. i A. .a n g w. a. .w. a. n . w. n. g.. w-w aw ..a w. a a v. t I

• -.4 7 o.k.9,,. 9 3

ano 4 .va 1 e I 4

• f.D..

T n '"W'. T..

r..w. a.a A a.o.

.a.e. ..w..n h.. a s n.. ',A .a m.. . 'w 3

• w-C m.'. w w.7 0.'t'r.

~,J. 7. m."..'.- e, 5 C

• ^

-.'A. ^ ~ w .t w

n... w ".v-

-.a,.'..

. ".. =.. '. av n n

• • e 6

.'f: Q?.,. *u" ' * ".'9

h. J..?...x. a m...1-]

3g. a 7 *! a- ,.".2* ..n.., J. m,, a. n w-. w-e -n N,e / .O .e.. %n..a,. 48. ,..,.,w-.. - u. a. ,,u..,.a.,.. 4 w. a w. ns 8 C v'.'N_ ' w. _m..".#:. G _ ~. 7."t _w,

• a s _*. a '. _',",.". =. ' s _= ^., _*. 3 w

~ ^ ,z .c w .a....aa..c., w.w. a.. w.. a.., 9 y.... _=.r m.. g. m.. =. a. .. =. _2, 4. 3, 2_.. A - a_ w a,, .. a. w w z. .s. 10 .ca n., s. w a. ,2 ,,.,a. c. ..w. _o. -...a.._<w,.., _2.. a _4 e r w w w .. a_ ,2.., .. a. .. a. .am_ i w. ,i 11 4-m a.__,. a s ,,w, s - =< i 4, =i 12 ~. ~..=.. =. 1. _',a,.. u.=..=., ^=..c.'.~..a' .- ^ = n =. x.'..".. ". a

2. _'. " _',.o... a.

si 1 13 _4 _* A e. o.P .P _2 e. A..t 3 s. r. - ~ ~ ~ =.~ ~ '.'.=.,c'~..'...,v.=..=..'., ,= 14 '."..a. .=..x...., A m. = ' -.*.u.. . ". = _ a a . w a= I 1:: .r. 15, e'_.a... . ".. = ~., ~ " "- - - a_ s a_.. s w-w.a_ d " _' a, a_ ". a.. - ". -,,.- a_ s a.....". w.".a s " '. =. w.- ".' A .,~ y. a. 16 .- a_.- _4.- a_ - a. _, _=.x a,, _a,. n,.e ..u. a. u,.- .r <, <. 3 a .a.. w< y w e<.. n... - o - - a. e~ 3 s d i-. 17 - -. _* w..s =.'.,=_ ~ M, __= ",s ..-^w. ..w. a_'.a.=.~_'..3 .m ^ ~ x j 5 c 16 n'.. A. ". a..n., -ev's, x".' a ."._'a- -.2 .. ~, ~. = s ...a -.' ~,, aa_ aw _s i ~~ . ^ 19 . an u*.-ad ~~ _'a_.a s.."._=..3., s _"..n a_ ~. u. a 3.~.~y .- a 3_=.~ ^. a s. ~.".a_ n' -.. =.. _' x n' s ~a g I 2Q a! p; ,A,n n 3 aa? .na.3 .e,... m...a n A a. n a.

• e.c

o. g ge. - a. n ' s e-*

ya ,,s a a-> .a.w. y 2]

b. m, -w.+

4 a " *,..~ " ". *. s e "i o. -,,~*..'."..#".3

1. ..^.a'.

W S

• y""'.,

~ Ca **

• ^

w w .v 3 22 1 ogn14-. 3. 4.,

w. _o.., e, 3.4 2.r. A.

a. .e. n_ g a. A.

3.,

3,.,2. l -4,- } y j ~ ~.. l i 23 ' 3..4 =.. s a.,.....,.... w- .' a..= va_ su-- o.w. .3.- ,, w a..- a. ".a a- - 3... - a. a.. 5 m I 1 g..u.d.y n g - o 7 A,. .. -. a. . w-kp j 24 f.a.. qu..n.s s =.. wn-a a- ^c ,,... 3 a., nyy n. v. w. m w w.. I 23 f - n. y e *.. a-w- Ma-c,a.. d w-o w.h. =

• w a b, g.. 3 d

.e..., w g=, wggoogg as - - o... A 4 y ..o m w -a n w. j y g yy i ALDERSON RE_P_ORTING_C_O_MPA_NL DEC, f

35 1l rules say. You are. making other changes in tne rules, and 2 conforming changes will have to be made to Appendix A. 3 MR. BICKWIT: That is certainly so. 4 I guess I ought to say thaD I don't know what the g S feeling is on this side of the table, but our general view was 9 ,8 6 as Tony outlined it, which is that we would not anticipate that R R 7 these time deadlines would be put out as deadlines, but that some j 8, kind of -- that the product of these various deadlines might be d i d 9 put out as something on the order of very strong guidance with ioy 10 perhaps an accompanying schedule, and with the understanding that 3 5 11 the elements of the final time period would be, to the extent d 12 anything was considered binding, would be less so than the sum 3= 13 total of those elements. l 14 ' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: You are saying should be put out E E 15, as guidance, Len, or might be put out as guidance? I thought 5 16 that the group was neutral on whether this package was, in fact, j M p 17 a good thing to do. 18 MR. BICKWIT: What I am saying, which I thought was 5 i 19 l obvious, is that if the Commission wants to adopt this schedule, 8n 20 this is what it should do. 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It sounds like some latent 22 descriptors are buried in that sense. 23 MR. BICKWIT: Another thing it should do is put out a 24 l policy statement on the order of what Tony has put before you, 25 l and among ourselves there has been sone discussion of possible i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

36 1 changes to that. But I don't see the need at this point to go 2 into the details of it. J 3 MR. SHAPAR: Except that it need not be a policy 4 statement as such. It can be a communication from the e 5 Commission or the Chairman to the chairmen of the boards. U 6 MR. BICKWIT: But I r.hink it is clear that there has e R R 7 to be, in addition to this kind of schedule, some mandates going A 8 to the boards as to what kind of general practices have to be dd 9 used. Y 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It seems to me that the policy E 5 11 statement would be the appropriate place for the Commission to j 11 explain its general directions here. S2ch rule changes as we 5 y 13 might agree to and start in motion would be by way of implementing = l 14 particular details of the overall plan, and I think the policy 5 2 15 statement, in fact, then becomes the primary expression of the Y j 16 Commission's rationale and course of action. A g 17 Let me ask how Commissioners feel about the sorts of 5 5 18 rules changes which would be necessary to carry forward with a

e" 19 guideline schedule comparable to that on chart 3?

R 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: May I ask a question again 21 about the discovery section of this? What is there to prevent, 22 in the event that you don't have discovery against the staff, i I .the intervenor from then saying, well, obviously what I have to 23 i 24 do is cross-examine on all of those issues to which I was unable 25 ' to extract a response through the informal process? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

37 i 1 MR. SHAPAR: Nothing. i 2! MR. BICKWIT: That is what is contemplated. 3, CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The theory being that that will 4 take a lot less time? But probably more staff resources. e 5 MR. BICKWIT: I think our view was that it would take Aa 3 6, less time. As far as staff resources are concerned, I don't know e E a 7 if we drew a conclusion on that. n 1 8 8I Were you about to say something? N d= 9 MR. OLMSTEAD: I was j ust going to point out that the i 5 10 staff, unlike the other parties, has -- there are three things z= E 11 ' available to parties to refine their information short of cross- <3 'd 12 l examination. They can use the Freedom of Information A.. The z i = 1 s 13 i Commission has approved the staff's open meeting policy, so that i m= 14 i ther have access to this information. u -b 2 15 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Row much help is the FOIA here, w i = l J 16 i thougn, within the time you are talking about? -t p 17 MR. OLMSTEAD: A good half of the interrogatories S 5 18 l against the staff are document production requests. So, they are P I E 19 ! going to have that anyway. 5 l n 1 20 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, but you don't have to i i 21 l respond within 30 days. 22l MR. OLMSTEAD: Ten days. 23 ' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Again, though, that is another 24 one of those schedules that doesn't always get met, and if for i a 25 any reason the document isn't produced, then the FOIA appeal a/ I A LD ERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

73 1 .. a. k.< s o.m.. < -o,../ s.p a.... c _--..u..< s. 2 .v u.. .c., : %o. a.. ~ s..a w...z ~.u.e.._... ec.<,. u.._., ~ u. n t .u.,.s n. .v 3 3 that if a document is producible under the.reedcc of nforna-ion 4 Act, it obviously will be produced. 5 MR. OLv. STEAD: Though not necessarily within ten days, = Xa 3 6 surely. e -m R 7 MR. ECSENTHAL: The predicate on which the study grcup Nl 8 proceeded was that the staff first would carry out its existing d 2 9 policy of openness in terns of dccu ents, other naterials that z. 1 10 ur~d a '.* a. . k. a d a c.*.=. * ^..s v^ ~. --.. 'u.=.*^.s.".a. =.~a_ . a..e .". a_ d *.. ".. a. = w z={ 11 SSER or proceeding docurents. Secondly, as Len' indicated, the 3 ci 12. cor' a--'a-'on was 'ka* -k=~a wo""'d ""a ' " ^ - ' d* d"~'-- -"~'~~a~ ' s " va-" - * ' --~~"* z --'e--** = e 'E 13 this period. = l 14 In other words, if an intervenor 10 ' king at the SSEE w h:p 15 . o.- *.* s a x y e.~ ~ ' c c k.*. s.*... ".. a. .c e r..; s a w = c - =.. ".*. s- *....._a. x a- -a = ~ -a m 16 ' *...' a p u.. ^ '.*.. 3~ and wa...a_d .o -= sc a. a x.s.' *...a. *. v^.. o.'.."..' s, w "..*.' a. e 3 'Jt h' 17 the for.al discover crocedures would nct be available > the a s w !c E 18 ir.tervenor or its exper could pick up the telephone and call the = != 19 s a.#.", a..d e.ha ..k.^e"m s.5. wc "m'_d a a_

k. c ~,,

k. e.

s,,a.". wou'd k a. 3 20 cecperative on an infor=al basis in prcviding this infor ation. 21 4 Again, what we were trying Oc. et away frc= was the 22 ,.. a*.a.d v-ocass ,k..a.. 2. 4 ' '.. O'=s.e.ad . a..' a...- a d- .~, -.n. d a ~. a.. -'.."..* a -^ a 3, s 23, d o a. s, da_ s * *. a. _ = _ ' ' m = " b _o n.'.= s, 3. o v' d a_ .=. __.. ' -.."^s..-_' . c. k.esa_ -= e. 24.

ore extended cross-examination en the part of intervenors than i

i i 1 25 would otherwise t the' case with fcr=al discovery, our feeling was E t 4 I ALDE RSON REPORTING COMPANYo INC.

39 1 i that that extended cross-examination is going to occupy a mere 2 fraction of the time that this formal discovery process would 3 occupy. 4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Okay. Can you all reconcile e 5 something for me? Why is it that if the staff, in fact, fully 3a 8 6 discloses documents as the proceeding is going along, half of e R 8 7 the interrogatory requests are for documents? E j 8 MR. OLMSTEAD: I think that by making an interrogatory d= 9' request, one gets the staff response under oath, as it currently i 10 exists, and essentially they want to make sure that they have E 5 11 identified those documents that are applicable to a particular <3 6 12 piece of testimony, and that forces the staff to go through the 3=d 13 process of identifying the documents again. The SER references S E 14 most of the documents. But when a discovery request comes in to N i E 2 15 the staff counsel, he goes to his specific witnesses, and rather 5 g 16 than get a collegial-response which you get in the SER, you are p 17 ; getting a particular witness going through his particular papers 18 looking for specific documents relevant to that request. 5 0 19 So, there sometimes are one or two additional documents N l 20 ! turned up that way than you would get if you had a collegial 21 identification of documents, which is the way it is done when the 22, SER is put out. 1 I 23 ! COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Is it the exception or the i 24 i rule that you get add.itional documents through that process? 25 MR. OLMSTEAD: I think it is the exception that you get i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

40 1 additional documents that are worth much. I think it.is the rule 2 that you do find one or two additional documents from place to 3 place, because individual members of the staff will have 4 documents that were not caught in the branch review process. 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Thus informed --- e Ae 3 6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Now you want to know what I e M 7 think. 3 8 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What do you think? n d n 9 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: I think I really would like to i O g 10 know something about the impact of this on parties in the z= g 11 proceedings. E d 12 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In an overall sense, or with regard z E I d 13 l to this particular set of rule changes? i E 14 i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Well, this particular set of a 2 15 rule changes and the schedule, ax j 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The overall proposition, then. A i 17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes. I can undec* eke to a x I 18 uncover that informally on my own, or we could undertake a more C 19, formal way of going about it, obviously. There are some ex parte n l 20 l problems with going to particular parties and saying what is the i I 21 ! impact of this on your particular proceeding. I 22 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't know quite how to seek that 23 ' information, as a matter of fact. 24 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You could put it out as a rule l l 25 change, anyway. l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

41 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: One way to go is to go ahead and I. 2 publish proposed rule changes. 3 MR. BICKWIT: I think it was our contemplation that i 1 4 these rules would not be published for comment, that you would a 5 want to move on a faster track. If that is correct, I see no nn j 6l problem with our office or any element of the Cc= mission trying R a 7 to contact parties and phrasing questions directly. I am not M 8 8l concerned about the ex parte implications. a i d l d 9l MR. ROS E NTH.'.L : Of course, not all aspects of this i i oy 10 I schedule are covered by rule changes. Some of them may be z 4 I E 11 ! accommodated within the existing rules. And if you just went l i d 12 in terms of the rule changes, there might be aspects of this z= U 13 f that then would not be open to cc= ment. = 14 I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let me see if I can get some feeling -b l E 15 more in detail about the proposed -- or maybe I should phrase a= j 16 it, about rule changes which would assist considerably in w d 17 ' allowing a schedule like that on chart 3 Len has got them .a= i E 18 I listed A through F under item 1 on page 4 The ones about = 1 9 { 19 j removing the right to mandatory discovery against the staff, I 5 20 l would be glad to go in that direction. I 21 ! John? 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I can answer en all of them. I 23 have no problem with any of the proposed rule changes. If you 24, publish this as the new schedule, I will j ust take a caveat to 25 that as being the new schedule. I don't think without addressing ) ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.

42 1 what are the actual issues that get looked at, which is the 2 contentions question, that the schedule is going to be met. 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Vic? 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't think I can tell you o 5 today. I can probably give you an answer in a short while. M N 6! CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I will tell you what, our next e R l 5 7' meeting on this subject is scheduled at 10:00 a. m. A E 8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Is that short enough? u d= 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You know, if there were some of these i h 10 I that I could find a Commission maj ority to go forward with, either E f 5 11 on an immediately effective or on a notice and comment casis, <3 d 12 even if not all of them, that would provide a framework in which 3= d 13 I could go back to Len and say, good, reconvene your group, you E l 14 know, utilizing what the Commiss1.on at the moment seems willing to b E 15 go forward with and see what it looks like then, and maybe that g 16 then becomes a typical down the line nominal senedule for cases e I d 17 l and allows, in turn, the staff resource scheduling and so on to 5 18 l move forward on some. F-19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I can't object to notice and 8n 20 comment, but I had thought that that process would take rather 21 too long to extract maximum benefit from the changes you are 22 thinking about. If I am wrong about that, I would certainly be 23! prepared to authorize the notice and comment. 24 ! CHAIRMAN BRADFORD: I will tell you, if the legal 25 authorities of the agency assure me that an immediately ALDERSON REEORTING COMPANY. INC.

l 43 1 effective set of rule changes of this kind could be made, why, I 2 e xp ect that would be my first vote. If it turned out that that 3 was unlikely to receive the blessing of the majority of the 4 Commission, then I might be able to manage a maj ority to go with e 5 the notice and comment so that people had a chance to tell us An 8 6 what they thought about some of these things. e &g 7 Indeed, to the extent that any of them would have any 8 8 application to the near term cases, if you go notice and comment a d d 9' they will have considerably less application, because it would 5 l E 10 l be just further down the line. E 5 11 On the other hand, as I have said repeatedly, I see the <k d 12 primary value in this exercise as straightening out the licensing z E i d 13 j process down the line and avoiding out -- putting us in a place I = \\ E 14 where we can plan rationally and avoid propagating this impact du k 15 on completed plant problems sort of down the line year after = j 16 year. M 6 17 i So, for those cases, why, if it takes o0-cdd days or a 1 = 5 18 80 days to go through a notice and comment which would E* 19 I accomplish this, why, it is still a worthwhile accomplishment fo r k 20 most of those down the line cases, and thus has considerable 21, benefit, in my view. I 22 So, what I would like to do, my first choice, obviously, would be to talk you all into saying, good, let us make these 23 t 24 l rule changes and let us make them immediately effective, and that 25 j will solve a lot of problems in how I phrase an answer to one of i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

44 1 our congressional subcommittees due when, in 48 hours, 48 hours 2 and a couple. 3 But if people though, you know, a notice and comment 4 route offered a flexibility which would allow them to go forward e 5 with some of this, good. h j 6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: My concern is that so far what R 7 we have back is a response to a question of, if one wanted to nl 8 capture a certain number of days, how should we do it. We haven't 4 E, asked OGC or the staff or Tony for an assessment of the impact of 0 9 g 10 all of this on quality af proceedings, and we haven't asked j 11 any of the participants for an assessment of the impact on their 3 y 12 ability to participate and the quality of their pcrformance. 5 13 I would be a lot more confortable if we had those two 14 things before we put the changes into effect. So, I would like, 2 15 I guess, to think about the individual provisions overnight. I 2 g 16 would certainly be comfortable going for a notice and comment ^ \\ d 17 ! type of package, and then making a decision at the end on a E 18 fuller understanding of what it would all mean for the m C 19 qualitative impact on the proceedings. ge 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think that is very helpful, as a 21 matter of fact. If we could all mull that proposition a bit 22 overnight and come back to it in the morning, I would ask the 23 counsel's office to scratch its head a little bit over the sort t 24 of schedule that might be reasonable. Obviously, we are not in 25, a position where I would like to see us taking, you know, great ALDERSON REPQRTING COMPANY, INC.

O e 45 1 piles of time. On the other hand, people ought to have time to 2 make a comment or a co==ent period isn't very useful. 3o, some 3 sort of a schedule for notice and comment, and we could perhaps 4 close on that, if possible, in the morning. !B e 5 The chairman is deciding precisely how hard you can Ke{ 6, squeeze the goose before it gets completely away from you, and 7l R if that seems about as good as we can do at the moment, why, I Kl 8 think it is good enough, and I think it is, in fact, useful d d 9 progress. Y \\ 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Could I ask a question of 3 5 11 General Counsel? <S d 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Please. z 5 l y 13 l COMMISSIONER'AHEARNE: In your session on trying to a E 14 address how you can squeeze time out, did you at all address the H i z i 2 15 ' question that Mr. Dircks has raised periodically, and that is, a z g 16 ! is there a reason for readdressing what is the purpose of that k d 17 l hearing that one is trying to squeeze the months out of? wz 5 18 MR. BICKWIT: No, we didn't address that question. I h 19, think we all have something in mind, and I don't think any of us N 20 I felt the need to examine it in that form. I 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You are asking lawyers. 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, it is a legal process, and 23 at least I have seen various lawyers debate, read of various i 24 lawyers debating what kind of a process can be in place. I 25 ; wondered whether that had been an issue. Apparently not. I I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

s 8O

]

U 6 O ** a,41 f4 j (. 6 0 4a 4 Fe Or;*oGth F' w 16l O )* O: $D.OOr! D1Lpf * )1n s1

• [*

6' !:l$ (6(l* L

• Lq(D*F;4 fO DDO! Ot rD$

• 1

.D$ t a (l r aL: o 4 o

• 1. u s

( G'3 O *a 1 1 L n !.l$ 5 D' i N nt ) 1

• DsD a4*

( 7tl el6. ( 6lsi tl t SON (L1OO O* r . aL1

• t i

u 1 trof OGDottO1 rGO

u Ol

$)rD - t W a s { t t' (t ( i (

• sl((

(t 't l

• t

( A4oLl! ol

• b O'() Mge )

1ld )tOH) t op.*t

• ,)
• atr i1

$D4O D' O O [] ][ D 1 t al ('s

• b.

p b (/ a F i tll 1 4 0 <l t t s

• ('

( 'a ; 6 O lr L r* t Lu c ( r1 1 n lT t D1D1 p7'DD r 4 1l r*

• i frit 4

5 m X*hOlT ev (lDa f s *s D tO lOOD COj. 1i el t il ( 4 ( w 6 4 5:2 8 at T 1 lt WOGes rD IGOl ]O'D OOt' O 'ltur*D X'tr

• a OOiD6u 4* g
• a

&m told trDaD O ' )( l nS o ) s 5 t( [ ( t(( e i t 4l i( (* sl(t t 6' 5 ) 20 L ( 6l t 'a. O '$ *. L trpt llOpG6(D1 D InD13 tl(t ( ( 1 o a1 L

• r*0

- )l 6 2 N eTD: M D *$ D ( O l1 D e( sl s 6 6 (lU6ei8 D s1D 1 O 'l 4 e;t I'

• :l

( 4 2 .6 0 g 4j u j g

• n 6'

O l1 D o '(6l6%

• s u

s D 0 *- 0 m e p1. o6 ! @ a14 Dp4D U4OllV 0O M O. : elpt O 's O g ' l[

• 1) 5( s 1<

t ei ( st 2 .C . D ;* D. O' D 1)Xa Ol trD t" e '1 D 4 u I.D ( ( ODlg)' !(l)D s T.

• 8 b

( <ll a1 )DM :3!e6t DH1 dot s!u1 4 1 v N.

• t 6

tl: s6}( tl< (g (( 4 ( = O 4 T O trD: it iGOlT rD 0gg o1L trD ui 6 4

• 1 0a i

O [19 i3v L'DlD 1Oil( 4( lGl fQ st 0 ( PJ 8 ) nh l ltOF1 1 6U tli o a 6' i4 al [l( tl< $ls G N l i $0nO{1OD OsOr4 s ps* ) l - Dgn oi' (G(4 h 4( ( t6(tI

• A W

G. .p OO*qh4444OLll i uhll = 1 ?]*H -ll 'GD. s 6((F t i t ' +

l ll' NI 1

4 li W < )a H4Ol'x62

• j.i1

( r i(; a toDD 0i; lD 4o. 1$)r8 p11 M'eT t)3

• t MDFFw t

F ( a 6l% I 7l

• ('

(( 6e l 4l

• I,*

( l ( t I M l .b or tlmO. l E l l lO o l(G @)lT t ('*v .m ,.m e D Ds E l' ll E

• Il 8i tlI1.

o ; 3 F*aS ls-4 ll" jui1 r sDaasL W"6 4l ' : t 6 a( slE Nla1O f I trD ) g 130ODA3 ll* 8 l ( '

• ('

< (D Pl* W ( 14 (l< S I,

• )

.N e t .t w t t TD o i o) 1OO g L 1 ONllai4 D8

• e (4 G*sD r)E '

f us O l1 u )OC6g JaO 4l l( l ? 7 t ( 4 l( l E l ~ l g .o (;i (

• l t I

f l 0l. eltt

• D1O O8.,

X i$r0e V m p1. o g [l D ) t m p-n 6t MDDl4 aO laD. O lr O G 3 r. tTul O [' g T u :. p

)

t .- ( ll a ( (l( l iT .trDsp ro;D 7 0 .4-

• D
• 3 tr3t a

u1 i* 1L p1.(L( ' rDDn OOOgUlO l1 ni w lae T tat <lpt ( ( ( on f D$ t 4l tli l0 <lDt el(' s lt. s sl ssl( t 0 1 w pO - 4 '(sDOD1 rDu$* 6!gu lP:.D r D )lp. oO

D$

r F* O1a* XlrD1 oO[p Do,e t 1 an 1 inDO(6 ] ) lus F ( ( ( p t 8*

la

iL'

(

(l t ( l; 4 g l O :* O DO*r1.6*OpI sD ;6 DX O 'g U)(Ii p" [Go: jD4DlrFp p a LD 1 r ( (it ( 6( t ) } f n lD lvODoa p ui t ( ' L ( 8 ( 6 i 'I g s O [] trD ): i

• 4'OODMu.

rpt l( (' pN. sl(

• aD4 I

iOON pt trD ) *F j. e u1t

• 10t n

1D;Dj 1j ( l u1 t t tl( m. 4 s i*lt w c w ~ pw ~ O Gs*fD rDD1 t *1 D lMttD1t a s( ( ( (l (l( il<* pb - O *. D $ trD !D0$n rOpept lp;D rDD) s.o r 4* l) sD 1);D3 O t 0i D1 a(8 t (* tl( i ( ( t ( (; 4l I(* i

• ((

+ O X l1 [Ot6(a tO 9pND Cs 6) pm + pOON [uf ra1Jh trD s*6g.i Ol trDn ar J s ] 8 Jt w <l( t at<e' t s 4 ( a tlpl >*"(OM2 h % R y O % j* d Q O Q ;I_$ r - - 7 t ' - "2O-

?f W

• t 1 i

=atters and so on. But it seems to me that this has always u.4 e n.,a_a..,,, waa.m.. ,,,da_ . w. a. ,a..n.a. _2, _4 o,....,. _< s. .w.a ..w.a. . c a.m a. -a w 2 u i s 3 a." *.. o, on."a. ^. a. " a.. A.,

• an-

a. v.d ^ =.. c a.

_a.n ". .a V.a.

1. *.. d _*. s a-u u

u. m. v.. 4 disputes ove" facts in the case, and on the other, to lock and 5 see tha; a reasonable attention to the regulations and the e -na 3 6 requirements of the Commission have been made by the staff in n e n. 7 " a 'a'.* a. w

• u s-. ". a.ay y _'.' ^ a.* c n..

_n 8 8' Now, if a board finds an occasicn to pcke on its cwn n 0 9 ~ ^..* c n " a - d. a*. s ^ ~.a " a - _4 c u.' a. _a.- a a, - w ^ " ' d.".- y. . _" _a. ..".a. a u. - - y z. n. 10 b o a d.s a.-a. "m". d a - .o _' ' 7 us _* v, ". ."._a. . ".a_ ", a.- a, . a., - a..' n -.._.. 3 a 2 1, z z 11 . h e. a. c.. m.> c a,_. a.,/ *_ a,4 e n. s a u.a.,.e c.r . u.,. s,. a e e o.- .v. a. t~,. - < a s _< u, u e. e J2 l b ewa ya.w, kuv =. 2..h. A." ano axa.wa4. - 3 _3 r. s- ..w. p - waw3. w. a " ".. a "* * '" a a ".. u - yu z _= 13 < e ve. O 'ccP. and_ sea w.". a..". a., ."a^,, ..".a. a. a. a ".a s " a a.. ~* _u _= m i s'. u' #.# -, s .-a. 7_#

• W

^# ". a. "y." ^s,# a. ".. _~ 14 ada..""a_a*vA'J'

• d_d."a.ssa.d.

"v " ~"u-a s v. o W ww 5 15

• c, 4.

.c _a e, _ e wa_ e-,a._1 _2._4 c s ma_ _n.. -..w. w . w. a.r.. w. 2., i a a. v., u v ua = - " a..o. ". a. " ~. '.".^=a ^# ~

• *
• s. " e _'.y."a s s ' e n o.r c n a.

g 16, "s.o-a.sa... v. .u a + A i 17 .ha ..".a. *s nc~. ..ha a a s a., w h,", _- w o ". _' d c a ". a _* _ _' " ' _* P. a. ~. ^ ". a _a." s _ 2 I = l E 18 it, so that my understanding of the process may be improved. -9" 'cas aav"cd", .'...d a --a a. d d.". a..- a... o. a. w.d..". .".._a. 19 u - r s-I -n 20 j expression? i 1 21 :' o'..'_' Cn.vu._r. e.m.yr.a. Ap.r.a.n>4

m. w ua a,sc=.c.._e"

'^ a w v.. m. u .a 1 b I 22 ! sufficiently general that you can have a wide range of 23 ' a e - '.' c a. s* c u s, a r. d .7 do.' .#ea.' . ". a. "ca ds hava. " a a ". _4.. _a.n" w a ~ .a y. 24, going outside what I view as expanding guidelines that the 1 u m -, c" a_ s.. v^ u "a. n.'.'.v.= a ' a. a s 25 '] Co...

• s s d a n.

".a s "e _ a r. 3_i v * ".3 "a..... .s' r. d a ~~ ^ s l ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY, INC. l

48 u 1 to my own personal view that I think we ought to narrow those 2 guidelines. But I think we will return to it again in addressing 3 the issue of contentions. 4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I was just going to say, unless what g 5 I have related to you in my haphazard way strikes people as just 8{ 6 dead wrong under the Commission's regulations and adjudicatory R 7 system, I wouldn't half mind if people thought it would be useful j 8, to see that restated in 'the policy statement. d 9 Now, the question of whether the powers of the boards 10 ought to be redefined or narrowed or eliminated is a good El 11 question and one which we ought to deal with at some point. I i j 12 ' am not sure whether this is the point. = y 13 Would you like to make the proposition? You.know,.I am = z 3 14 hoping to peel out of here in about another 15 minutes. This may E 15 not be the best time at the end of the afternoon to propose that. 's j 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Given that I have a sense that ^ 1 y 17 ! if I am going to-get any support at all for that, I would need a x 18 you strongly in support of the issue. I would j ust like to P E 19 reiterate the thought that it is a very important element and 3n 20 at least from my view it fits together with, if we are going to 21 improve the licensing process, rather than envelope schedules '22 or even dates embedded in that, we have to address what is the I 23 ' purpose, what is it getting at, and how is it getting at those, 24 l and that is part of the issue of guidance of the boards. It is 25 part of the issue of contentions. i . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

49 1 MR. DIRCKS: And what is the product that has been 2 coming out of these very expensive meetings? 3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Or what could have been the 4 product if we had used them correctly all these years? e 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is always easier if there is sone h j 6 sort of proposition in hand against which to carry a discussion. R 7 I don't know whether you think you could gather some help and K j 8, frame briefly a proposition. d l d 9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, the General Counsel had i Og 10 looked at that for some length, j ust raising the threshold. E j 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, does raising the threshold a p 12 cover it? E d 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: No, it is just a part of it. m l 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: ThEt is what I thought. It seemed 2 15 to me that the question of raising the threshold was almost 5 g 16 obviously related, but would be considered separately. w 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I would be delighted if you would = 19 j make us a proposition on the board powers. M 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Reading that as a potential vote 21 of support, I would be glad to. 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If you get me early in the afternoon 23 and in a good mood, which I believe happened once in 1964 --- 24 (Laughter.) t 25l Listen, I need to pass something in the last 14 minutes I i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

50 1 of this meeting. Let me try a proposition on you about what to 2 do with some things we have discussed before. 3 We have discussed various ways of trying to cut down 4 the length of time in the nominal case that the Co==ission itself 5 is -- you know, that the ball is on our side of the net, and = b ] 6 things aren't moving until the Co==iscion takes the next action. R R 7 That is the i==ediate effectiveness proposition. Mj 8 And what we have said is, well, there are a couple of d 9 ways you could deal with that, but we have talk;d about two in i 10 particular, your version and mine, and agreed that whichever way z _) 11 I that ended up, why, we were going to get back about two conths 3 d 12 out of the three. z 5 1 d 13 Now, since Appendix B of Fart II, which puts the three s m 3 14 =cnths or approximately the three months in place, is a rule, we a u 2 15 i did so througP the proper process, or at least we asserted that w x g 16 we had gone through the proper process. It is going to take a x 6 17 rulemaking to change. w x i we 18 What I would like to propose to us is that we go out s 19 ; for co==ent, put both versions in, you know, preface it with g^ \\ 20 I some language saying in the present context, and since a lot of 21 i time has passed since Three Mile, and since we have put that in, i 1 22 l it is appropriate to readjust it, the present knowledge, 23 ' realities, progress and TMI requirements and so on,- and there 24l are these several, at least two ways that we have been thinking i 25 j about, and what do you think about that? 4 i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

51 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Sounds fine. 1 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Peter? 3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Fine. 4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: John? e 5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Fine. h j 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Good. General Counsel, please R 7 prepare those propositions along the lines I have crudely X j 8 indicated with all dispatch. I dare say, as always, members of d d 9 the Commission would kind of like to see the language before it Y g 10 goes out, so I don't think there is much point in my asking you E j 11 all to vote. You have all nodded that the proposition is 3 j 12 generally acceptable. When we see the words, we will then have 5l 13 something that we could affirm and go out to get into the a i l 14 l Federal Register. 5 2 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Are you going to ask Len to try g 16 to address these other agreed on options, which was the last l W 4 l 6 17 ! CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: YeM, it wouldn't hurt. Len, what l N N 18 can you do in ten minutes on these other things? It will amount P P 19 to sort of a two minute summary or a one minute summary apiece. g 1 n j 20 MR. BICKWIT: Sure. These were options that none of l 21 our offices had any obj ection to. 22 MR. COTTER: One modification. 23 ' MR. BICKWIT: All right. None had any at the time. 24l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Most had no obj ection. l 25 ! MR. BICKWIT: The first is one we have mentione before, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

32 I' e I which is to proceed en 0737 in the way or a similar way in which 2 we are proceeding en 0713. 3 CHAI?.'!AN HENDRIE : I think we cught c, but : don't 4 know. 5 CCDf!SSIONER 3RADFORD: Nc being a great enthusias: e An j 6 of the way you are proceeding, let ce ask this about doing that -e. R 7 with C737. The 0737 contentions are going Oc have to be acted M j 8 cn before one oculd complete an 0713 type of process? d i = 9 MR. BICr4IT: In soce cases they are, yes. 2oy 10 CO:Oi!SSIONER 3RADFORD: But in those cases the z = i ' !ii 11 Cc= mission will have ruled on them and thereby interpreted 0737 <3 y 12 for the purposes of future beard action as well. 13 MR. BICrdIT: In sc=e cases, yes, that is true. z xg 14 C..A. L,,!. ..-,,D R.;: .. w,ong? ne s nn . ns.. we 1: .R 15 c CC'OIISSIONER 3RADFORD: My cence.m is that tnat we are x j 16 talking about doing is introducing ancther perturbaticn into f. p 17 the policy state =ent, 0737, revised policy statement, waters [

.:z 18 that have already been stirred quite amply, and nay be beginning

=H E 19 to settle. xM 20 COMMISSIONER AREAR'IE: Except the perturbation would 21, be that at the =ctent it is guidance that is sc=ewhat fu::y, as 22 we found, on where the Cc==1ssion has been telling the staff, 23 and this would then be moving 1 to a rule. So, it is no: 24 perturbaticn in the sense that at the =ccent it is in sc=e semi-25 nebulous for= and the Cc==ission thinks this is a sced idea to go i 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYu INCm

53 I this way, putting it into a rule which says the Commission has 2 reached final decisions and so forth on the way it should go. 3 MR. sICKWIT: In a situation, in an adjudication you 4 have changed your initial judgment so that what you had in 0737 = 5 has now been changed in a given proceeding. I would expect that h j 6 you would adjust your rulemaking so a= to conform your rules to R 7 your present thinking, rather than the thinking that you were s j 8 undertaking at the time you put together 0737. But I don't see i d= 9 that as a difficult exercise. Y 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let me suggest something on this. zj 11 I would like to ask the collective staff to begin to move toward a j 12 preparing the NTOL requirements in rule language for discussion =l 13 by the Commission sometime not,-- I wouldn't regard that = l 14 discussion as coming in what I think of as the near term' time 2 15 frame of trying to sketch out a set of things that we are trying I j 16 to do in the licensing, on the licensing problem, but a little M i d 17 I while down the line. And I would ask the EDO to not sacrifice Y 5 18 more pressing matters in order to accomplish the drafting of this =5 E 19 I language, but I would hope to see it in -- what is reasonable, R 20 a month, six weeks? 21 MR. DIRCKS: A month. 22. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: A month. Now, associated with it, i 23 ' then one will have to think, if it were to be contemplated 24 seriously as a rule, one would have to think about some of the 25 further guidance on how it fits into the hearing process.

Well, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC0 s

54 I let's see, if we go ahead and make it a rule, why, by george, it 2 is a rule. 3 What I have got in mind, Peter, is that a year and a 4 half from now, it just seems to me that we ought to have been a 5 able to do better by Three Mile related requiremer.cs for the 5 6 plants coming in for operating licenses than sort of whatever R R 7 degree of litigation, individual litigation is popular at that M j 8 time. It just seems to me that we ought t.o have been able to dd 9 pull those into a set of rule requirements and just be in tidier io 10 shape, and I would hope this effort would aim down the line. Well, E j 11 it would have to go out for comment. It is just not going to be 3 y 12 effective, in any case, in a snap. 5 d 13 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I will tell you what is = l 14 concerning me, and I don't oppose having the staff go out and 2 15 go through that first step in the exercise. I don't think the M j 16 rulemaking process works especially well when we deliver into it a 6 17 a document like NUREG 0737 or 0718 and say here is a proposed Y 5 18 rule, tell us what you think of it. E 19 i I am much more comfortable with picking out a few M ~ 20 issues that seem to be important or that seem to be giving 21 trouble in a wide range of proceedings and saying, we would like 22 to come up with a rule on these six or eight or ten subjects, 23 ' whether.they are all in one rulemaking or in six or eight or 24 ten separate ones. And.then proceeding to a rule on that basis. 25 ' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: There only are a couple, aren't i -l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

i i there? 2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It sure wouldn' t with 0713. 3 CHAIRMAN HINDRIE: If the staff's reading of category 4 I and category II items are correct, you have got so=etning like 3 5 half a dozen or eight new requirements that are not really in A 6 any of the present regulations, and for the rest it is a -n d 7 re-interpretation of r2gulations. N j 8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But you would go ahead and d 2 9 re-interpret, make the re-interpretation explicit. You really z, oy 10 were talking about taking everything in 0737 and =aking a rule z= 5 11 of it. <3 d 12 MR. SHAFAR: It is not j ust what is necessary, it is = 13 really what is desirable to make it understood. = m= 14 CHAIRMAN EINDRIE: Wells if these things are indeed as =_ r 15 j the Cc==ission's j udg=ent on the require =ents, why, it is a fair g I 16 croposition to sooner or later to write then down as reguls.tiens 3 z d 17 and let that be clear and explicit. w z 18 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: Well, regulations or guides, =H{ 19 s tandards, wherever they belong, in any case. M-20, COMMISSIOllER AHEARNE: I was = cst concerned about the 21 ones that go beyond. ~ 22 CHAIR'4AN !!CNDRIE: It see=s to =e that the question 23 of whether the whole shebang ought to go in, ough: to be done as 24 l a rule, rewritten as a rule, er whether there are some selected 25 areas that see to be particularly sore points that really need i a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

I to be tied down explicitly in regulations, and you would only go 2 with that. That is a discussion that would be appropriate to 3 have at that time. 4 MR. DIRCKS: Those are the ones we were focusing on, e 5 those that icoked like they were requiring regulations. En 3 6 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: You =ean the 30 day answer e em 7 was just for the s=all set. N j 8 COM'ESSIONER AHEA?J!E: Before you disappear, could I d:! 9 quickly ask on No. 2? i=h 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Not cnly that, but I have got a z= E 11 note frc the EDO that points out that he has cc=e down here with <3 d 12 a full battalien of ceople prepared to present evidence, rrcan z = E 13 in unison on the resource question. = E 14 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: Which is in itself a resource wHz r 15 question. wz j 16 CHAIRMAN UENDRIE: How lon5, oh = aster of the staff, t 6 17 will it take you to explain your problem? w= iii 18 MR. DIRCKS: We can do it quite quickly. = I 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I notice there is a pa:k here. =M 20 I wonder 1; it is practical. I hate to send people away and .21 ask them to come back tomorrow. 22 CC?CCSSIONER AHEA?l:E: Why don't we read this tenight 23 ' and listen to Bill tomorrow? 24 ' . CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: How many folk do you need for this? 25 - ] I don't know hew conster the crowd is. My guess is it is about l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

=~ si 1 a. d o ** a.... 2 .v..n.. 3. ? c..e v e. .? . w 4..4 w.. a,. ...as.,4 s .w.3. 4.4 9 - w 2..a,. w v.~. w . av-3 .s wha.n wa. ~a " a 'w k.*..~ ~ .h. a. '.. s. w - . ". a..'.-w... -a.-., s., w r-4 .# s.*.1 b.e q u e s..* ^.,".s C.# Wu s- *,, p " *., 5. a. s 0." p.- ^,., a' a. o., s.. * " '.d. "w

• b w

= 5 da..#a..--a d, a.n d

k.. a..* = -

.a.. s ura. ....' -. a. . a r. sv~u w'.. wa. ---a. ~ w. w. E te = 6 on that. e =n M,,, 7 .". c w, w.h.a,, wa c o "..' d d, o.' s ~ ~., '... v^ ~.".a..'.-^... _a.. d 3, M E 8 C0'NSS IO'ir 1 ^ 2^:"':- 'fa -ad*-- - k

• s s ~* ~ ~ * " s~
• a -a

-a n --"s ~~~ ~ -- 3 d 9 s k '..*.. e.* *,,,.', 'w^^k.s.o -a. '*'r=. ."..a. .' s a ".

a..a.=.,"

• • "". 6,

~~ . w m .~ 3 z.. u'- 10

• k.. ra u ~.".

."..* s, .-a b a ".]- ' -. s~ a... = s.* ' ",

a..

' w "u. n-s y - .w. z 2 11 vn.. g r:cr.~e. 'd a. ^=- c c.a "w.a a k "..' j~ w~ "u w.'.' '. aka. ".= ..iv w-. w m .= 12 ""-"e-c"-a c*1 ~va"- - s~ -~ ""- " x* -~~~~"t'-

• ie w~ ~'

a- -wa -a -aa-'-- "a^k z ~ ^^-a "~- - ~ - * ~~- --~ = -e: 13 . ~ - " ."u s..-a.e,.. a~a..=.. s- = .E. 14 C u.a'.7.:'.'.n'.I .c.r."s.:.. r..- .".a.a.' a, d a,. a ', d a.a. '. s. w..'.

k. ~^ "a d

.a ,a h:; 15

w. a..,", c "m ca.

"w. "*~."4, .w-". aa. ". a. .= ..u b=.~ c.e, w sw"

a. a.-

"a ~^ a 3 x x g 16 high nur.ber two. iicw about that? s F 17 .'J.:.. D S.C "~4.- ~. k.a.,.* s w". a., we "a.-= - - d _a s. ~ aW 3 18 (I., aught er. ) h l 19,' b"u. A'.i.= v.A".U.=.=vm,.n..r =. e u.,. w~, .

• u. w a.- a.

a ;Cuw a. u..- a. a. n,, - u fw . 61 w. g M 20 a Avun. 'g a. b.ad

• .o..a.a -.c " c - a.'.'

k..*.. d.s v^.#.'ae c-w ""y s. ~a a a m. 21

. h 4..,c

.,,.w. e C c. 4 s s.4 o,,. w.a s - ? v.e.,. - .w4 -.....e e.rL..w . w 3.. . w 22 C O '.' a. a -,.a s .a., a. g C.., *. e~ - a a.* d., y.'.....a n, o ' e '3 a., . c. av 4,,, 4s 4 4.... -e 3 y m .au ad. w, ' '.' u -- 23 Oo,, Sw uS w w..a ' e.ci.1 ,, C a,, s w y., ~e ~, *, - -- w a. + w e. a.. i g .y

1. w 24

'ge w.l.l s a. a yn g. 4.. - k a. m g.-..vi e 3 v wo . 25 '. Ud.b.a. - a u' y o.., a,, 1 0 0 p. ."..a.

a. a w '.. e w a s ^ ^,,r.a..' "- d e d..,1

( m. w 1 -l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.

.e NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.W4ISSICN This is Oc certify that the a;; ached ;rceeecings before One Nuclear Regu'atory Comission in the =atter of: Discussion of Revised Licensing Procedures Date of ?roceeding: March 10,1981 Docket !!u=b e r : I 8 '.= c a.c# 2 ~. e c a. a. d.e.. 3.- Room 1130,1717 H St.,N.W., Wasnington, D.C. were held as herein appears, and that this is the Original transcrip: thereof for the file of the Cc==iss10n. Marilynn M. Nations Official Reperter (Typed) .-w Cf ficial Reper:er (Signature) y r-our w-}}