ML19350B547
| ML19350B547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/09/1981 |
| From: | Shapar H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Bickwit L, Rosenthal A NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19350B546 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-104, REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8103200840 | |
| Download: ML19350B547 (19) | |
Text
.
f"gt.# #f CgI e
g O;rin-g.%
UNITED STATES s
i "uc'saa aeou'AToav commissio" p
c wasmucrou. o. c. 2esss veO March 9, 1981
?l0TE TO:
Leonard Bickwit, Genercl Counsel Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensina Appeal Board B. Paul Cotter, Jr.
Chief Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SUBJECT:
CONDUCT OF LICENSING BOARD PROCEEDINGS I have reviewed Tony Cotter's Draft P oposed Statement of Policy on the subject of " Commission Guidance on C6nduct of Licensing Board Proceedings" which he sent to the Commission en March 5, 1981.
My suggestions for changes are included in a revised draft which is attached.
Further changes will undoubtedly be required as a result of Commission decisions reached in the ongoing Commission meetings on revised licensing procedures (including possible rule changes).
One of the things I have tried to do here is to correlate this stateunt with our existing policy statement (Appendix A to Part 2) and the situation of the " eleven impacted plants".
oward K. Shapar Executive Legal Director
Attachment:
Revised Draft 1
1 l
l 8 1032008410 1
l
~ "
w
- r. n r.
f o
UNITED STATES
'g p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y;; -
- E WAShlNGTON, D. C. 20555
.n.
e E
,o a
MEMORANDUM FOR:
B. Paul Cotter, Jr.
Chief Acministrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel FROM:
Chairman Henorie
SUBJECT:
EXPEDITING THE DECISIONMAKING PROCESS AND AVOIDING UNDUE DELAYS In the past, the scheduling and processing of licensing reviews has typically provided sufficient time so that the hearings would be completed and the licence issued by the time the nuclear plant is. completed and ready to oper-ate.
For the first time, however, these hearings are or will be continuing for at least eleven nuclear power plants that should be complete and ready to operate before the hearings conclude. This situation is an indirect con-sequence of the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident, which required a reexani-nation of the entire regulatory structure.
After TMI, for a period of over a year and a half, the Commission's attention and resources were focused on plants which were already licensed tc, operate and to the preparation of an action plan which specified a discrete set of TMI-related requirements for new operating reactors.
During this period utilities which had received construction pemits continued to build the authorized plants.
The severe public interest impact of these delays has been discussed exten-sively before interested committees in the House and Senate.
Although there may be differences of opinion on the precise overall impact of these delays, as well as in the different estimates of the consequences for each of tae plants, as a general proposition, the delay costs now are estimated to range in the tens of millions of dollars per month for each completed plant.
Moreover, these plants would need an operating license if their generating capacity is to be responsive to any severe need for power situation which may develop.
l As you are aware, the Commission is making every effort to see that available resources are devoted to the co=pletion of its licensing reviews of these plants and to avoid all unnecessary delays in these hearings.
For example, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (ONRR) and the Office of the Executive Legal Director, as a part of their intensive effort to expedite the processing of facility license applications, have instituted an extended work week.
)
(;..:
B. Paul Cotter, Jr.
- A presiding licensing board is the principal entity which is in a position to impose an informed direction over the hearing phase of the overall licensing process on the basis of detailed knowledge of what is required to meet the legitimate interest of the public as well as legitimate interest of the parties.
A presiding licensing board has the responsibility for controlling the course of the hearing so that it is completed expeditiously.
The authority to do so (see il 2.718 and 2.757) and the procedural tools to carry it out are provided in the Rules of Practice, 10 CFR Part 2, and more detailed guid-ance is given in the Statement of Caiaral Policy and Procedure in Appendix A to Part 2.
I fully recognize the difficulties under which licensing boards labor, even under noncal circumstances.
I also recognite that efficiency and expedition of the hearing process are not the only interests at stake.
It is central in the Comission's accomplishment of its role that the hearing process be conducted fairly.
Nonetheless, unnecessary delay does not properly serve any of the interests which could be affected by the hearing process.
In view of the unique responsibility bestowed on presiding licensing boards, and the important challenge which the Commission is now facing, I would like to reiterate the. Commission's finn policy on expediting cases:
In The Statement of Considerations which accompanied the restructured Rules of Practice, the Commission said (37 Fed. Reg. 15127, July 28, 1972):
"The Commission is concerned not only with its obligation to the segment of the public participating in licensing proceed-ings but also with a responsibility to the general public--a responsibility to arrive at sound decisions, whether favorable or unfavorable to any particular party, in a timely fashion.
The Commission expressly recognizes the positive necessity for expediting the decisionmaking process and avoiding undue delays.
It expects that its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the National Environ-mental Policy Act of 1969, and other applicable statutes, will be carried out in a manner consistent with this policy in the overall public interest."
The Statement of General Policy and Procedure (10 CFR Part 2. Aopen-l dix A) on the conduct of hearings for the licensing of nuclear power
~
plants now states:
"The Statement [of General Policy and Procedure] reflects the Commission's intent that such proceedings be conducted expedi-tiously and its concern that its procedures maintain sufficient flexibility to accommodate that objective.
This position is j
founded upon the recognition that fairness to all the parties
B. Paul Cotter, Jr..
in such cases and the obligation of administrative agencies to conduct their functions with efficiency and economy, require that Commission adjudications be conducted without unnecessary delay."
More recently, the Commission has noted (Miscellaneous Amendments to its Rules of Practice 43 F.R.17798 and 17801, April 27,1978) that it is " committed to developing a hearing process which will produce decisions in a timely fashion" and referred to its "respon-sibility to the general public to arrive at sound licensing decisions in a timely fashion."
Implementatica of this long-standing policy of the Commission is, in large
- part, the responsibility of each presiding licensing board.
Recently in public Commission meetings, as well as in an earlier seminar which I convened
(" Seminar Report on the Public Hearing Process For Nuclear Power Plants",
NUREG-0545, June 26-27, 1978), constructive suggestions have been discussed.
on steps which presiding boards could take to reduce or eliminate unnecessary delay from each of the three phases (prehearing, the hearing itself, post-hearing, including the rendering of a decision) of the hearing process.
In the final analysis, the actions, consistent with applicable rules, which can be taken to acco' plish that objective are limited primarily by the good m
sense, judgment, and managerial skills of a presiding board which is dedi-cated to the task of seeing that the process moves along at an expeditious pace consistent with the demands of fairness.
Some of the major observa-tions which have emerged from these discussions are:
l The effectiveness of a presiding licensing board depends on its I
ability to organize and manage the proceeding.
In this regard, the establishment of schedules for the completion of the hearing and for the completion of sijnificant actions is necessary.
Even though such schedules must e/ necessity be f'exible in appropriate circumstances, a presiding board should insist that all parties make dedicated efforts to meet schedules.
In this regard, the times provided for in the Rules of Practice may ordinarily be regarded as th'e maximum times for the various milestones in the hearing process.
Reasonable reductions in these times are entirely proper if a presiding board deems such reduction to be in the interest of regulating the course of the hearing. A board should be satisfied that the section 2.711 " good cause" require-ment for adjusting times fixed by it or prescribed by Part 2 is met.
All requests for extension of time should be in writing and should be filed with the Board three working days before the time specified expires.
With regard to its duty to manage and regulate the course of a j
hearing, a presiding board should make it clear to participating l
parties that the failure to comply with any obligation properly l
L f..
S. Paul Cotter, Jr.,,,
1mposed in accordance with applicable law and Commission regula-i tions, without a showing of good cause, will result in appropriate sanctions which include, when appropriate, dismissal of that party from the proceeding.
Infomal Consultation and Conferences.
Full advantage should be taken of the use of informal consultation and informal conferences to work out measures such as those with respect to the admissibility l
of contentions and the nature and scope of discovery.
Use of these infomal approaches have a clear potential for resulting in a more expeditious hearing than a situation in which every dispute in these areas must ultimately be resolved by the board itself.
A board should encourage parties to negotiate through infomal consultation at all times prior to and during the hearing to resolve contentions, settle procedural disputes, and better define issues.
Negotiations should be monitored by the board through written reports, prehearing conferences, and telephone conferences, but the boards should not become directly involved in the negotia-tions themselves.
Settl ements.
A board should encourage settlements either as to particular issues in a proceeding or the entire proceeding.
At least, following completion of discovery, and prior to the filing of motions for summary disposition, boards are encouraged to hold settlement conferences with the parties.
Such conferences are to serve the purpose of resolving as many contentions as possible by negotiation.
The conference is intended to:
(a) have the parties identify those contentions which they no longer consider as valid or important so that such contentions can be eliminated from the proceeding, and (b) to have the parties negotiate a resolution, whereever possible, of all or part of any contention still held valid and important.
The settlement conference would not replace the prehearing conferences provided by li 2.751a and 2.752 in the Rules of Practice.
Summary Disposition.
In exercising its authority to regulate the course of a hearing, full use should be made of the summary l
disposition procedure so that evidentiary hearing time on any issue, which although allegedly in controversy, is not the sub-ject of a factual dispute which needs to be resolved at an evi-dentiary hearing.
Timely rulinos on crucial issues. A board should issue timely rulings on crucial or potentially dispositive issues at the earliest practicable juncture in the proceeding.
For example, a ruling on such an issue may eliminate the need to adjudicate one or more subsidiary issues.
Any ruling which would affect the scope of the evidentiary presentation, and the time and resources
(
B. paul Cetter, Jr.,
needed for such a presentation, should be rendered promptly so that resources would not unnecessarily be used because of the uncertainties regarding the definition of matters in controversy which would continue to exist without the ruling.
In other words, a board should issue timely rulings on questions of fact and law so as to define the issues in controversy in as narr:w and specific manner as is justified.
Rulings on procedural matters to regulate the course of the hearing should also be rendered in a timely manner.
If a significant legal or policy question is presented on which Commission guidance is needed in order to prevent cetriment to the public interest or expense, a board should promptly refer or certify the matter to the Commission.
The Commission, for its
- art, will make its best effort to answer such questions procptly.
A board should exercise its best judgnent to try to anticipate crucial issues which may require such Commission guidance so that the reference or certification can be made and the response received without holding up the proceeding.
Board manacement of discoverv.
Discovery should be limited to matters relating to tne key issues in controversy.
In no event should the parties be permitted to use discovery procedures to delay the proceeding or to conduct a " fishing expedition."
Unless there is a compelling reason for the non-disclosure of documents relating to such issues, they should be made available as a mathr of course.
When a party resists a reasonable discovery revest, the entire progress of the proceeding slows.
A board should manage and supervise all discovery, not only the initial discovery relating to admitted contentions, the applica-tion and accompanying environmental report, the original Safety Evaluation Report, and the Draft and Final Environmental Statement, but also discovery arising out of any relevant supplement to those documents.
A board, in consultation with the parties, should establish time frames for the completion of both voluntary and involuntary discovery.
Each board should determine the method by which it supervises the discovery process.
Possible methods include, but are not limited to, written reports from the parties, telephone conference
~
calls, and status report conferences on the record.
In virtually all instances, individual boards should schedule an initial ter-ference with the parties to set a general discovery schedule immediately af ter contencions have been admitted.
With respect to any discovery permitted following the filing of supplements to the SER and the FES, a board should closely monitor
B. Paul Cotter, Jr.,
such discovery and insure that it is completed as quickly as possible.
All useful management devices should be employed, and specific time frames should be established.
The failure of a party to comply with d'scovery requirements is subject to appropriate sanctions.
A board should, when justified, rule against the interests of a party which fails to cooperate in discovery requests.
For example, such sanctions may include denial of the right to cross-examine or present evidence, dis-missal of the offending party, or dismissal of one or more of its contentions.
I Schedule for commencement of hearino.
As a general goal, with recognition that there may be cifferences among individual pro-ceedings, boards should manage all prehearing procedures so that the evidentiary hearings will commence not later than months following the issuance of the requisite staff documents which are needed for the staff's pres'entation on key issues which are in controversy in the proceeding.
In all instances, however, if a board believes it advantageous and practicable to de so, it should commence the evidentiary hearing and decide discrete issues even prior to the availability of such staff documents.
Consolidated Intervenors.
In accordance with Section 2.715a of the Rules of Practice, intervenors should be consolidated and a lead intervenor designated who has "substantially the same inter-est that may be affected by the proceedings and who raise [s] sub-stantially the same questions...." As stated in this section, consolidation may not be ordered which culd prejudice the rights of any party.
However, consonant with that condition, single, lead intervenors should be designated to present evidence, to conduct cross-examination, to submit briefs, and to propose findings of fact, conclusions of law, and argument.
Where such consolidation has taken place, those functions should not be per-formed by other intervenors except upon a showing of prejudice to such other interveners' interest or upon a showing to the satisfaction of the board that the record would otherwise be incomplete.
Trial Briefs, Prefiled Testimony Outlines and Cross-Examination Plans.
All or any combination of these devices should be required at tne discretion of a board to expedite the orderly presentation by each party of its case.
Cross-examination plans, which are to be submitted to the board alone, should be beneficial in most proceedings.
Each board must decide which device or devices would be most fruitful in managing or expediting its proceeding by, among others, limiting repetitive and unnecessary direct oral testimony and cross-examination.
t o-l B. Paul Cotter, Jr..
Combinino Rebuttal and Surrebuttal Testimony.
For particular, highly technical issues, a board is encouraged during rebuttal and surrebuttal to put opposing witnesses on the stand at the same time so that each witness will be able to comment immediately'on an opposing witness' answer to a question.
Appendix A to Part 2 explicitly recognizes that a board may find it helpful to take expert testimony from witnesses on a roundtable basis after the receipt in evidence of prepared testimony.
Simultaneous Filino of Prooosed Findinas. Whenever possible, a boarc is encouraged to require all parties to file proposed find-1igs of fact and conclusions of law simultaneously.
Issuance of Initial Decisions.
Appendix A to Part 2 states as a Target goal the desirability of having a board render its initial decision within 35 days after its receipt of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law which are filed by the parties in a contested case.
While the' Commission recognizes that hearings involving particularly difficult, complex, or novel issues may take longer to decide than others, boards are encouraged to make every effort to complete their work within this time frame.
Boards are also encouraged to adopt proposed findings as fre-quently as they deem appropriate.
Steps such as those which I have identified herein, if vigorously imple-mented, should reduce substantially unnecessary delay in the hearing process.
I am confident that the Commission can depend on your full cooperation and that of your colleagues in responding to the challenge we now face.
Jc:eph M. Hendrie Chaiman
,(
k UNITED STATES e
c (7' a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
j,E wAsmucTon, o. c. 2osss
+['.....o March 3, 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Hendrie Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Bradford Comissioner Ahearne FROM:
Edward J. Hanrahan, Director Office of Policy Evaluation Leonard Bickwit, Jr. [ h General Counsel SUBJEC":
OPTIONS TO ACCELERATE THE LICENSING PROCESS Enclosed is a list of options to accelerate the licensing process for use as discussion points in your upcoming meetings on this subject. The lisc is essentially a sumary of the staff suggestions presented in earlier meetings and memoranda.
We have categorized the options as follows:
Category A - Staff review process options Category 8 - Hearing process options
~
Category C - Other options, such as rulemaking For each option we bave also provided the category of plants which we l
believe would bar.arit as follows:
I Category I - Plants now complete or nearing completion with staff reviews essentially finished -- awaiting outcome of l
hearings or licensing decisions.
Category II - Plants due for completion in 1981-1982 which may be affected by the staff review and hearing processes.
Category III - Plants due to be completed in 1983 and beyond.
l
\\
r i
5
- y
\\,'LY h
h1 /
l
!V \\ p
=
2 For the Commission 2-Additionally, we have provided a preliminary cost / benefit at assment to aid in prioritizing the various options. The criteria used for this assessment are listed in Attachment 2.
Those options in the five most favorable benefit / cost categories are listed in Attachment 3.
Attachments:
As stated cc:
S. Chilk W. Dircks H. Denton B. Cotter A. Rosenthal e
b a
w +, --
SUMMARY
OF OPTIONS TO ACCELERATE THE LICENSING PROCESS Category of Preliminarv PlantsAffectedl/
Evaluationl/
S A.
Changes to Staff Review Process
\\
II and III 1.
Better Priorization and Management of NRR Work L
H
- Accelerate OL-SER sche Qles where flexibility exists to avoid impacting plants
- Establish NRR priority setting steering group
- Increased management attention to OL reviews (weeklyreviewmeetings)
II and III 2.
Changes to NRR staff review process
- Reviewers dedicated to finish draft and final L
M SER/SSER during period innediately before input due
- Utilities will bc requested to have review team L
M at Bethesda during finalization of SER III
- Plan to establish dedicated CP review group L
M II and III
- Limit / elimination of Q-2's A
M III'
- Independent design review groups Study furthe II and III 3.
NRR will redirect resources from other programs to M
H casework consistent with safety priorities and as approved by the EDO II 4.
EDO redirection of resources to NRR M
H II and III 5.
Approval for NRR to hire to fill critical positions L
H II 6.
Mandatory overtime for all NRR employees (Saturday Study furth!
- 1/2 day - emphasis on casework) 1/ I - Plants now complete or close to completion with staff reviews essentially finished, awaiting outcome of hearings or licensing decision.
II - Plants due for completion in 1981-1982 which may be affected by.taff review or hearing process.
III - Plants due for completion in 1983 and beyond.
2/ L = low, M = medium, H = trigh, based on criteria in Attachment 2.
.. II and III 7.
Under current practice no particular attention is M
H paid to intervenor contentions in the staff review.
Staff review resources would be allocated so that intervenor contentions are specifically addressed early in the review, and partial evaluations issued.
In this way settlement would be facilitated, early hearings encouraged, and t'e hearing record improved.
B.
Hearing Process g40 I, II and III 1.
Reiterate a firm policy on expediting cases L
L 7
I, II and III r 2.
Restore the immediate effectiveness rule to the extent Covered by I
that it has been suspended in the licensing of B.3 nuclear power reactors by Ap endix B to Part 2.
I, II and III
~3.
The Comission could amend Appendix B to 10 CFR L
H Part 2 so as to provide that Licensing Board initial decisions on fuel loading and low power testing (and perhaps full power for limited time periods)
~
may be imediately effective.
~4 Add to B.3 L.
The Comission could exercise surveillance of the I, II and III licensing process in these contested cases by fol-lowing a procedure similar to that in Appendix B, except that the initial decisions of Boards wou'ld be imediately effective as per 10 CFR 2.764. The procedure would go as follows:
- Board issues initial decision favorable to licensing.
The Director /NRR issues the license, as per 2.764, within 10 days or as soon as any noncontested matters required by the Director are finished.
1
- Within 60 days, the Appeals Board decides stay motions and also decides on its own motion whether a stay is warranted.
- Then the Comission reviews the case, hopefully within 30 days of the Appeal Board's decision, and decidr,s either to intercede in the case at this point or to allow the case to follow the nor:nal
~'N route through the Appeals Board and the plant to perate as it does so.
II and III 5.
The Comission could require a discovery schedule Coverad by to be adhered to, absent a showing of substantial B.17.a prejudice to an affected party, se that the start of the hearing would not be delayed.
1
. I, II and III 6.
Establish, at least as a goal, that normally hearings H
M will start within 30 days (or some other specified interval) after the pertinent staff documents are available.
I, II and III 7.
Encourage presiding boards to meet the guideline Covered for rendering timely decisions. Appendix A to Part by 2 provides that the Comission expects that "ordi-B.17.b narily a board will render its initial decision within 35 days after its receipt of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by the parties in a contested case." Typically, presiding boards do not meet this guideline.
I, II and III 8.
If the Comission should decide that the role of H
L the Boards in a contested proceeding is essentially only to decide matters placed in controversy by the parties, the Rules of Practice could be revised either to restore the " extraordinary" standard for boards to raise issues sua sponte or to eliminate the board's sua sponte role in contested proceedings.
III 9.
Strengthen the current requirement for a petitioner H
H for leave to intervene to set forth (not later than 15 days prior to the holding of the special pre-hearing conference called for in s2.751a) the '
evidentiary basis for each contention.
II and III 10.
Establish a higher threshold before ordering a N/A to hearing to be held if a hearing is not otherwise relevant required by law.
If a hearing is nevertheless held cases as a matter of Comission discretion, the hearing could be of a legislative or hybrid-type rather than adjudicatory.
I, II and III 11.
Adopt a rule restricting participation by a party M
L to those issues raised by the party's own admitted contentions.
I, II and III 12.
EncoJrage staff to make fuller use of the sumary H
L disposition of issues at any time during.a pro-ceeding, either on motion by a party or by a presiding board ruling sua sponte that there is no issue to be heard.
Presiding boards could fully use sumary disposition authority in regulating the course of hearings so that hearing time is not used for issues about which no genuine issue of material fact is in dispute and therefore need no be litigated any further.
i II and III 13.
Use an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) instead of a L
L three-person licensing board to conduct hearings and render initial decisions.
II and III 14.
Limit the notification procedure to presiding Add to B.8 boards to material which is relevant to admitted contentions.
I, II and III 15.
Eliminate all possible licensing and appeal board L
H schedule conflicts.
I, II and III
- 16. The Cnnnission could review the intervenor preferred H
L contentions in selected cases.
I, II and III
- 17. An Order could be issued by the Commission in each docket which would do some or all of the following:
a.
Require the Licensing Board to set firm and t
H stringent time limits on discovery, filing of testimony, cross-examination, and filing of proposed findings.
Some illustrative examples
- of time limits could be included.
b.
Require the Licensing Boards to issue initial H
L decisions within a given time period after close of the record.
c.
Require filing of cross-examination plans so L
M that cross-examination is focused and non-repetitive.
d.
Require at least one settlement conference with M
H board attendance.
Parties would be required to explain why issues cannot be settled or narrowed.
e.
Emphasize that failure by any party to comply L
L with discovery, filing or other obligations without good cause will, in serious cases, result in dismissal of that party from the l
proceeding.
f.
Require early partial initial decisions on H
H critical path issues even in advance of com-plete staff review where this could advance the course of the hearing.
g.
Encourage the Licensing Board to adopt parties' M
L proposed findings when they are supported by the record.
h.
Require simultaneous, as opposed to sequential, L
M filing of initial proposed findings.
,. II and III 18.
Current NRC practice calls for filing of sumary Covered disposition motions by NRC staff and applicant only by B.9 after completion of discovery.
However, there is no statutory right to. discovery under the Adminis-trative Procedure Act and it may be possible to advance the filing of motions under 10 CFR 2.749 to the pre-or mid-discovery stage.
II and III 19.
10 CFR 2.749 could be amended so as to place the M
ti burden on intervenors to show after discovery, prior to hearing, a genuine and substantial issue of material fact by available and specifically identified reliable evidence.
II and III 20.
Where identical TMI-related issues are raised in a H
L number of cases, litigation of the issue could be consolidated n;to one separate proceeding.
II and III 21.
Parties could be required to depose all prospective M
L witnesses before the hearing, and additional cross-examination would not be permitted at the hearing absent some special showing.
The Comission would bear the cost of the depositions.
II and III 22.
Much has been written in recent years about the M
M advantages and disadvantages of formal hearings to resolve disputed technical and policy issues. The concept here would be to use informal hearings at a means of separating out those particular factual issues that require formal examination and cross-examination under the APA.
In this way the hearings themselves would become narrowly focused. As part of this concept an effort would be made to determine by general rule the kinds of issues that require oral cross-examinations.
I, II and III 23.
The Comission could itself preside over the hearing H
L on some issues in some cases.
II and III 24 The Comission should clarify the Licensing Boards' Covered responsibilities in OL and OL amendment proceedings by B.8 concerning unresolved safety issues, to make it clear that litigation and findings are required in this area only if a Board determines that a " serious safety environmental or comon defense and security matter exist." See 10 CFR 2.760a.
I, II and III 25.
Increase staffing of licensing panels.
L H
1 I, II and III 26.
Issue a statement of policy furnishing guidance to Covered the Boards in the hearing and management of licensing by B.17 Cases.
I, II and III 27.
Seek authorization from the Office of Administrative Add to Law Judges in OPM to:
(1) qualify existing Panel S.25 Members as ALJs, and (2) obtain authority to use prior, Panel Members not ALJs in other agencies, as needed.
C.
Generic Changes II and III 1.
The Commission could amend 10 CFR Part 50 to include L
M a set of necessary and sufficient TMI-related oper-ating license requirements derived from NUREG-0694 and 0737. This would carve out litigation of some, but not all, pending TMI-related issues and resolve those issues by rulemaking.
Parties could still contest compliance with the new regulations.
Both proposed and final rulemaking would need to be published.
II and III 2.
NRC staff could be delegated authority by the Com-M L
mission to issue rules, in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act, that would not be binding but that would be entitled to prima facie validity in the hearing process.
These rules would then be used in conjunction with summary disposition to eliminate contentions that did not cause any genuine issue. This would minimize resources asso-ciated with preparing sumary disposition motions.
II and III 3.
Increase use of rulemaking to resolve or provide Add to guidance on generic issues so that recurring issues C.1 l
will not have to be adjudicated repeatedly in individual licensing proceedings.
I III 4.
The Comission may determine that the requirement L
L t
l for a demonstration of financial qualifications should be eliminated or that the current scope of the financial qualifications review is excessive in some respects.
l III 5.
Rulemaking could be initiated to preclude, in the L
L absence of new and significant information, the reconsideration at the operating license stage of y
need for power and energy alternatives.
L
l
. III 6.
The Commission could place greater reliance on H
L 3
state assessment of need for power, energy con-servation, and alternative energy source analyses to assist in the fulfillment of NRC's NEPA responsibilities.
II and III 7.
The Comiission could define more precisely the M
M safety matter at issue in the TMI Action Plan and the grounds for challenging sufficiency.
I and II 8.
Expedite ACRS review or provide ACRS review with L
M draft SER. (Move to Category A.)
III 9.
Provide early public question and answer sessions M
M near site to minimize intervention. (Move to Category A.)
I, II and III 10.
Increase staff support to FEMA to expedite review M
M and approval of state and local emergency plans.
1 I
l
~
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF OPTIONS l
Expected value in time savings Short term or long term applicability Litigative risk Impact of safety assurance Impact on staff resources Impact on public participation
' Impact on NRC credibility w
ya-n
.,.-.----,e,
^
TABLUATION OF OPTIONS IN THE FIVE MOST FAVORABLE BENEFIT / COST CATEGORIES High benefit / Low cost --
A.1, A.5, B.2-4, B.15, B.17.a, B.25 f
~
High benefit / Medium cost'--
A.3, A.4, A.7, B.17.d Medium benefit / Low cost --
A.2, A.8 (C.8), B.17.c, B.17.h, C.1 High benefit /High cost --
B.9, B.17.f A.9 (C.9), B.19, B.22,. C.7, C.10 Medium. benefit / Medium Cost O
i i
l l
l L
i l.
l l
,