ML19350B889
| ML19350B889 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/17/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8103231041 | |
| Download: ML19350B889 (62) | |
Text
__
s..-----.-u
.-a w.
n.
- -... a a -,,,,s.sw---,..
.O I
/,
/c coy 2.i!SS OH M.EETING P
~3 the VAS" Of:
DISCUSSION CF REVISED I.ICENSING PROCEDURES i
l ll
(
OATI:
March 17, 1981 FAGIS:
1 - 60 AT:
Washincton, D. C.
- I s
8[
qV l
-. AfQp0 y
6-a i
/A.
l
% p%
.W l
b J.4 4 m
/
l
.unensw _ n as,muu i
d
(_.
4co n:-isia An., s.w. vamning :, :. c. :cc:4 C
Tahph: e: (200' 554-:245 l
1 03231GM
i e
1 Hansen/r&t 1
l I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
2)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
3l 4
DISCUSSION OF REVISED LICENSING PROCEDURES i
3 5j R
1 j
6l Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission R
Room 1130 Tl 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
i i
8i
.4 i
J Tuesday, March 17, 1981 d
9i I
l 10 :
'he Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m.
z 1
=
1
'S II ! BEFORE:
3 l
4 g.
12 JOSEPH M.
HENDRIE, Chairman of the Commission 5
i s
13 '
VICTOR GILINSKY, Ccmmissioner
,=
h 14 I PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner
=
j 15 l JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner E
y 16 ! ALSO PRESENT:
I W
l t.
17 '
JOHN HOYLE, Secretary 5
LEONARD SICKWIT, General Counsel l
5 18 ;
MARTIN MALCH i
WILLIAM DIRCKS l
i:
i 19 l EDWARD HANRAHAN 5
i HOWARD K. SHAPAR 20 !
ALAN S. ROSENTH11 j
P.
B. ANTHONY CCTTER 21 i H'J10LD DENTON l
I.EVIN CORNELL 22 23 24 !
25 t
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
-c 4
rs-1 vv>
I 11 a: : Qffd -d 2T
_ mW pg cf 3, ;,gg.s g ;J gg. 7.a.j
% ha C :=xisata='s. ciftsas 2:
aK Nuclaar Zag 6 :s:7 C.
. sic hali := March 17, 1981
~-
1E7 5::see, 3.
J.,
u
- -e-.%
W* C Sa =mani=g.*as open := puh' # - 4::asdasca a=d chsarra._ dan.
l
- 2=sc=170 has =ce been ruviasred, c.::sc:ad, c= ad1:ad, and
.: =E7 c="-' d ' *~="
- _ ~~.
h ::anscrip: tz *==mr M_ sola17 f:= ss=ars.L i=f::=a:d e I l
papesas.
As p. 4 dad. by 2.0 C22. 3.102, i: is ::: pa=: eg g.
f:M cr ' ' :=al :senri cf dacist. :. cf de =a::ars itsc=ssed.
D"' "_"* cf :?i:
1:= 1:
'd* ::s=sc=1:e dc ::: acassar.17 raflac fd:21. da:W-=:1=cs or beliafs.
Ne pt..ed-' :: : har
' si::. i= a=7 pr: cam as da.
paver :s7 be.filad.v1:!t.he C-_
I
- ssul: cf er add:sssed. :s a=7 ses:a=s==== a.ra==
en-'d ad.
ha-%, azcape as da C.wa1:n =a7 au::terf.:a.
O e
1 I
l l
l e
I l
i l
2 i
1 !
PROCEEDINGS i
2i CHAIPl!AN HENDRIE:
Come to order.
i 1
3l The Commission meets this morning to continue its dis-i 4! cussions about revising the licensing procedure.
One of the e
5' features of this sort of meeting is that one is normally greeted
?
3 6
at the table with new papers one has not yet seen.
It adds a 9
7 [ certain zest to the proceedings.
i j
8' If I ask the general counsel to recap where we are in 0
9; this discussion, would that be an embarrassment, or do you think
\\
10 i you could try that?
z i
m j
11 (Laughter.)
3 y
12 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you say it is an embarrassment, I 3
I 13 I will do it.
5 m
g 14 '
MR. BICKNIT:
At the last meeting we had agreement that 2
15 proposed rules would be drafted and served on the parties to the w
i z
j 16 proceedings and published in the Federal Register.
Those rules 2
y 17 have beendraf ted and have been sent, t.; publication is expected a=
l 18.
this week.
Comd=-nts arc asked no later than April 7.
E l
l 19 l We...ad not gotten to Chart No. 5 of the March 10 memo 1
M l
l 20 i that we put together in preparation for the last meeting, and it 21l would seem to me that would be the appropriate place for the i
22 i discussion to resume.
l 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seems to me that is indeed where l
24,
I was headed.
Before we get there, can you tell me what the r
progress is on preparing ahead for the Federal Register?
l 25 l
J l
1 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 3
i 1l MR. BICKWIT:
The immediate effectiveness?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The immediate effectiveness options.
2, 1
3l MR. BICKWIT:
We are hoping that that will be before the 4
Commission in a day.
We are not committing to that, but that is 1
5' our objective.
=
M9 3
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see, we have a hearing tomorrow.
e R
Will we all be around the rest of the week, or are people' going to R
7, I
I j
8 be away?
d d
9:
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I was going to be out Thursday.
2 t
b.
10 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You were going to be out on Thursday, o
E i
5 11 '
but back on Friday?
<3 d
12 MR. GILINSKY:
Yeq.
z i
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was going to be out part of E
13 i a=
E 14,
either Thursday or Friday.
I can arrange it either way.
d
=
9 15,
CRAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Peter?
_w I
3 i
16 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I will be here.
3m p
17 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You will be here.
So, if you could a
then and get it up in a hurry, we will z
i 18 l drive that draft forward, i
P i
E 19 !
see if by chance we can sort it out.
I guess what it would take, x
let's see, have we voted to go forward with that and we remain 20 21 l only to resolve any difference in wording on the draft, or do L
i 22 we need a meeting?
23 MR. BICKWIT-We do not need a meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We do not need a meeting.
Good, that 24,,
25 is a help.
I would like to see it because that particular piece ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 4
l l
1! of business is worth a couple of months on every contested case, i
s 2
and we are counting on it.
I 3-Now, let's advance on Chart 5, then, ratner page 5 of the 1
4 paper.
We have already agreed on Nunber one that the staff ought
=
5 to try to pull together 0737 in rule form for Commission Ae 3
6! consideration.
a 1
5 71 MR. SICKWIT.
Well, as I remember, there was some A
j 8, discussion about whether we were talking of the Category 2 items d
9 9l in 0737 or whether we were talking about the entire 0737.
Over I
10 ' here we were talking about the entire 0737.
E 2
11 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I was talking about the entire 0737.
<m j
12 - Let's identify those who are talking about the Category 2 items
=
13 l E
in 0737.
E i
m g
14 j MR. s!CKWIT:
Commissioner Ahearne has --
9 i
z 1
2 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
At one time.
x z
j 16 MR. BICKWIT:
-- at one time focused on that part of it.
M y
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What does it mean to be talking a=a 18, about everything?
a
=
l r
i
?
19 li CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The distinction is the following --
M 20l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I understand.
It seems to me i
21 putting a document like that through rulemaking there is going to i
22 ; be a certain amount of picking and choosing if only to condense 23 the thing.
There probably are a lot of items that simply do not 24 ~ineed to be in rules, I would think, I think we ought to try to 25 keep the rules, other things being equal, as short as possible.
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
5 1
CHAIEMAN HENDRIE:
That's possible.
You remember when 2
the constructicn permit requirements were ccdified as rules, 3
rather than take the whole staff document which applied, whose 4
number it seems to me was 0718, is that right, and stamp " Rule s
5 of the Cc=missien" on it, what was done was to go through the 8
j 6
requirements in 0718 and sort out those essential, significant a
7f points - essential and significant points - which appeared to the N
s j
8 staff to be needed in rule for=.
d d
9
'When that rule is eventually published, why, there will 5
10 be as backup to it and staff guidance to it, a staff repcrt. I
~
z
_s i
II do not knew,0718A or sc=ething like that, which will have the 3
f 12 rest of the detail in it,.
But the rest of that detail will not
=.
g 13 be a regulation, it will be staff guidance in the same sense that
=
x i
14, other staff documents are guidance.
-z
,(
15 Similarly, with 0737 I would expect not to see every
,z I
16 i dot and tiddle of 0737 in a proposed rule, but rather the essential i
w l
y 17 points, both of Category 1 items and then of course, I think, 4
.z w
18,
all the Category 2 ite=s have to be reflected in this rule.
=
P l
19 But there are also a number of the Category 1 4 a-s in l
M i
20 which you are in effect re-interpreting the present regulations.
l 21l If pecple are going to be perfectly clear on what we nean by that 22 l interpretation and then stop arguing about it, why, you are going l
23 ? to have to write it down in rule form, as I think you have said l
l l-24 on occasien.
q l
l 25j Cc:mISSIONER GILINSKY:
I bring this un because it L
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
a
i 6
i seems to me that. even in *.he case of the construction permits where j
,i we did pare the rules dc*;n from the original document, I am not 2i sure that we did not overdo it in putting everything into the 3
4; rule.
There are a lot of requirements that simply ask for studies from the licensees.
I am it sure all of those need to e
5 4
be in the form of rules.
S 6,
e f
7l There are other requirements th2t are really pretty substantial requirements, E
8 n
d.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, but I think rather than try to i
9
,4 i
10 edid 0737 this morning, I think the discussion illustrates the 4
f i
kind of thing we would like to see in the first draft.
What we l
j jj m
J 12 ) have to do is look at it.
Then you can look at it against 0737 Z_
and sort of decide, does this 1cok as though too much has come 13,
E 14 l through in the rule language, or not enough; are there sc=e items x
i w
V i I would rather see in and others out, and so forth, 15 u
4 x
m COMMISSIONFR GILINSKY:
Fine, let's address the whole 16,
s
' thing, p
37 a
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, add cc=ments to that.
E 18 E
39 l MR. BICKW!T:
One option before the Commission since a5
, this draf ting job is probably going to take a substantial pericd 20 l
21 : of time is to put out for comment 0737 in the same manner that you put out for comment on 0718, thereby saving a substantial 22 23 ' period of time in the process.
I think you indicated the last time that the rulemaking 24 process does not work as well when that is done, as when yco have 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
7 i
1 1
j a refined draft going out for comment.
I agree it does not.
But
.s 2l there is a trade-oft here and I think the Commission ought to address that.
3 4
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
A time tra.deoff.
What do people think?
5
=
1n 3
6i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
How long does Bill believe it e
7 would take to get the revised draf t?
A
\\
3 8!
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know.
I suspect we are n
d 9, having a conference on the aubject right now.
Any guesses?
I l
E 10 !
ME' DIRCKS:
Decending on what comes back fron the CP i_
5 11 rule that was sent out.
If is not too much
-- the s ame s taf f
<m 3
32, would do the job on the 0737 that is working on the CP rule.
If 5
i 2
j ',
the CP rule does come back with a great number of comments or
=s E
14 ! substantial revisions, with that caution, I think in 30 days we d
w 15, can do scmething witn the 07 37, turning it into a statement of M
i z
i 16 ; requirements along the lines of the CP rule.
i 3
i
\\
s j
g 17 CHAIIDQd HENDRIE:
From the standpoint of ccming more wz l
18 rapidly to a decision on the rule, both with regard to having 1
c 19 ; one and with regard to what is in it, it seems to me tha? if M
l 20l we pushed 0737 out for comment, pointing out that we contemplated 2j transferring the essential provisions into rule form and would 1
22 jappreciate comment on that, that at least has the possibility of l
23 speeding the process.
You then get comments; you then presumably l
24, get the staff draf t in a month and ccaments ccme back on 0737, 25 depending on the time you allow; a couple of weeks after that, I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~
1 l
8 l
i l
1 would think.
l I
t 2 !
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
When you speak of 0737, you j
i i
i 3i mean just that document?
What about the provisions of 0660, were J
4 l; they not carried forward in 0737 -- are there not things that i
e 5
ought to be done?
i i
g 8
6i MR. BICKWIT:
We met 0737 in the reccmmendation on i
e R,,
7j the grounds that it is there that you got a straight benefit in A
8' terms of expedition in the very near term on the licenses that 4
i
- j 9j are impacted.
z l
o 1
10 l CHAIR!iAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
Remind me what the other i5 i.
j 11 ;
report covers, Peter.
j 3
(
12,
COM?iISSIONER AHEARNE:
0737, I felt, was a modification.'
E 1
E 13 !
MR. BICKWIT.
Of 0694.
i I
14 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Much of those modifications were,[
w M
I 15, I thought if you look at it you would get the sense that the
- s i
E I
g 16 l Cosaission is saying that what are the conditions are those i
I
- d
)
i l
!;i 17 in 0694 except as modified in 0737.
5 I
l 5
18 !
MR. BICKWIT:
That is true.
What I meant to exclude in !
I l
f 19 the recommendation was 0660 that Peter just mentioned.
a i
I 20I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I am not sure I any longer 21 ' remember which.
I l
22 MR. BICKWIT:
0660 had a number of requirements which 23 ' were not selected for the NTOL.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
You were really meaning l
??
- o say all of the NTOLs.
a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
s.
l 9
I 1
1 MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
2i COfSi!SSIONER AHEARNE:
Which is both the previous and 3
i that is modified.
/
4 MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
5i CHAIRiAN HENDRIE:
I had in mind the requirements that e
5 i
j 6! went with the poliev statement, the amended policy statement.
R 7i COfSiISSIONER BRADFORD:
Which were the combination of I
j 8
0694 and 0737.
4 9l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
n zO i
y 10 '
How do people feel about publishing the NUREG for z
11l comment?
8 i
Y I2 i CO!!MISSIONER AHEARNE:
Would you have to publish 940 E
l l
13 I also?
=
.E 14 f CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know.
i z
j 15!
MR. BICKWIT:
Yes, I think you would.
E I
d 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The owner of the Federal Register is l
I N
I7 likely to have a fit, isn's he?
s E
i COf1MISSIONER AHEARNE:
There is a discussion over there 18
~~
E 19 !
on that issue.
e M
20 l CO!SiISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is it your position that, l
i 1
21l having done that, then there is nothing more we need to publish?
22 f MR. BICKWIT:
Before rulemaking, yes.
23,
CC2iMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Before the final rule would be 24 i
adopted.
25 '
MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
What you would do is, you k
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I i
10 1
say, "Here is 0694 as modified by 0737.
We are contemplaing going
/
2 to rulemaking on this and we would appreciate ccaments not only 3i on the substance of what is in here, but on how to go about it, i.e 4
to what extent one issue that was raised in the 0713 centext, to n
5 what extent are you saying that these rules are sufficient to 9
3 6
get a license."
You could ask for cccment on that question, and n'
5 7' how to refine the rules generally.
i
.Nj 8
MR. DIRCKS:
You know, when we are talking abcut 0737, d
o; 9
we are talking about a massive document.
z 10,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
How did we get 0713 into the register, z
11 by the way, was it shorter to start with?
m I
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Or was it by reference?
=
d 13 MR. BICKWIT:
It was by reference, and that is what
=
l 14 : you would do here also.
I
- z 2
15 !
MR. DIRCKS:
The two documents, no telling the amount wz j
16 of material that would be cccmented on.
M l
N 17 It may be lenger in the short term, but could we just xx 18 take a crack at just refining the requirements?
f:
I b
19 '
CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Jce, realistically I am as much g
n 20 l in f avor of trying to expedite going forward en this as anyone, i
21 but it is unfair to quote these two large documents and say, 22 [ "Quickly, give us cc=ments."
And I think it is very inefficient 23 in the long run.
I think the best approach is the one Bill has 24 described.
25j CCMMISSICNER 3RADFORD:
I am relieved to hear that.
4 i
a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
r j
11 j
I an afraid it I suggest.it myself it would prejudice some point, 2)but I think it is exactly right.
3 MR. BICKWIT:
I just want to say, I do not regard it 4
as legally inadequate in any way to go forward.
i 5'
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I did not mean to imply it was.
e En 3
6' COMMISSIONER CILINSKY:
It would probably run for e
R R
- 7. several days in the Federan Register.
l
-n (Laughter.)
j 8!
5 9;
CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It would stop the rest of the i
O i
n 10 ; government.
E i
5 11 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Would that be a cost or a benefit?
<t d
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I don't know, depending on z=
5 13 how you look at it.
=
E 14 '
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right,- let's not fire out the e
a c
E 15, 0737 and 1690 for comment but wait for draft language to come up.
sx 16 l It is really hard to guess which would turn out to be the most 3e i
17 efficient course.
As a matter of fact, we could very well want E
E 18 a second round to comment if we went that way, as we have done
- e C
19 ' on the other one.
This way we hopefully could go round once.
=M 20 :
COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Well, if nothing else, you 21! would have to allow a really extensive comment period if you 22 threw something like that out.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
Now, you had a point, and then 24 we can get off this.
I thought I was going to get through it in 25 two minutes.
I expected to be done with Item 4 by this time.
k.
_ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
12 1
1 i
l 1'
MR. SHAPAR:
Following up one of the remarks you made
[
2; and Commissioner Gilinsky made in deciding what goes into rules 3 ;l and what dces not.
Part of the time that has been taken in N
4 approaching this problem has been trying to decide into which two I
5i categories the proposed requirement falls, whether or not it is e
b j
6i a clarification of an existing rule, or whether or not it really 4
7l imposes a new requirement.
j 8
I do not consider that a very productive exercise, dd 9i although it might be helpful as an analytical tool.
If you 10 i are going for a rulemaking And decide it's. desirable, let's go E
l j
11 > with that.
3 y
12 )
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's right.
That is one of the 3
1 13 ! benefits of going to rulemaking on this, that you do not have y
t l
14 to define Categories 1 and 2 with much precision.
9 z
i 15 ;
Well, let's see, with regard to Item 1 on your list j
z i
j 16 on page 5, rulemaking on the TMI issues, then, we have succeeded i
I w
i b.
17 ' in holding the ground we occupied in the last meeting.
There I
x l
5 z
18 i has been some elcboration, perhaps some helpful clarification E
l l
19 l and I do not see that we have particularly lost ground.
i E
l 20 !
So, taking encouragement from that, such as it is, i
1 21 ' would you lead us on to 2714?
i i
MR. SICKWIT:
On that matter we have a study under 22ll 23, way and propose not to discuss the matter here until we are 24 ! able to come back to you with the fruits of that study.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I have a pencil waving.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 13 1'
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Tell us a little bit about that I
.~
2! s tudy.
3 MR. 3ICKWIT:
You know about the study, it is the
(
4, February 17 memo in which the Commission authorized us to look g
5; into various ways to modify the contention rule.
We cited one.
g,
]
6 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And when do you expect to 7.
7, complete it?
'n j
8' MR. SICKWIT:
We are expecting before the end of the d
d 9! week to have something out to the other legal offices for connent.
Y 6
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As I have several times urged f
j 11 you to at least address a couple, at least examine a couple of 3
y 12 l options.
E 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I was distracted by the pile of 5
14 papers, Len.
Would you tell me again when you hope to have m
E E
15 something we could chew on?
z=
g 16,
MR. BICKWIT:
We expect before the end of this week 2
17 to have a proposal out to the other offices for comment, not x=
}E 18l to the Commission.
i
?
19,
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There seems a cruel lack cf equity M
i 20 :
there.
21!
COMMISSIONER AHMRNE:
It is called " Marshalling I.
22 i of forces.".
23 '
MR. BICKWIT:
We of course can modify that schedule.
24, That was the schedule that we were put en, but I think I can 1
25,
advise you that that can be =cdified.
5 A L DERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
't I
14 i
l 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see, wher. you say the
~3 2I other of fices?
i 3l MR. BICKWIT:
We are talking about the other members of Il' 4
our group, OELD, the Appeal Board, the Licensing Board.
e 5
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The "Ad hoc what to do about our 3
I n
3 6
problems group."
e R
2 7.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The schedule is fine with me.
1 M
j 8
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seems to me it would probably be d
9! useful if the rest of your crowd could have one quick chew on it,
=
Y 10 l but I would not want them to ponder on it for an extended time.
5 l
5 11 ;
MR. BICKWIT:
We had a staff requirements memo that 3
d 12 ! required us to get back to the Commission three weeks from the z
i 5
=
E 13 date of that memo, which I think was last week.
We are on E
mz 14, schedule.
w i
us 2
15 e CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is hard to complain about that, w
z j
16 l isn't it?
l y.
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It is a victory these days to a=
1 E
18 i hold you to your terms.
=
I 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
On the question of financial n
20! qualifications we have in fact asked the staff to please think 21 ; again on this and ccme back to us with something we can use as a
()
22 l basis _for discussion.
i
~
23 MR. DIRCKS:
We sent scmething down this week, I know
>\\
24 I signed it.
v 25 MR. SHAPAR:
It is done.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 1-
~3 i
1 MR. DIRCKS:
It is done.
m, 2
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do you have it, or do we have it?
3 MR. DIRCKS:
You should have it by new.
N 4
CCMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
That is another one that it g
5, is hard to complain about, n
N g
6 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
John, have you seen'it?
0 i
7f MR. HOYLE:
No, I haven't.
m 8
MR. DIRCKS:
I signed it about two days ago.
?
d 9'
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
There is scmething about the process 2
g 10 of document transportation between Bethesda and dcwntown z
1
=
j 11 Washingten which turns out to be --
a Y
12 l MR. DIRCKS:
That is why we wanted to add No. 8 down
=
j 13 there, interim consolidation in the agency.
=
x 5
14 LHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, but if we don't have, "It's in s
r 15 the mail" as a work category into which papers flow and remain a
=
y 16 ' for scme period of time, hcw is the whole system going to function z
17 without that " search tank?"
If we are close coupled you just x=
{
18 have to walk upstairs with it, boy, that is going to be terrible.
M g
All right, the scener the better.
" Flow" ahead, then.
19 n
1 20 -
MR. BICKWIT:
Cn the next item, the thrust for the next 21 ' item came primarily frcm the Appeal Board and CELD.
My own view 4
well, first of all, we are all supportive of it.
22 1 is that 23 My own view is that our group cught to try to select 24 these issues which really are appropriate for rulemaking and cut i
25 back to the Commissien with our specific recctmendations.
get J
I 1
ALDERSON REP O RTWG COMPANYo INC.
16 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could someone expand a little bit
.rS.
l 2f on that?
I 3!
MR. BICKWIT:
Sure.
(
4 MR. ROSENTHAL:
In our view there are a number of g
generi~c "need for" issues that can be disposed of and shculd be 5
n
]
6' disposed of generically.
I will give you one example.
That is R
7i some of the alternatives to the generation of electric power b;'
'n j
8l nuclear fission, bicmass, woed-burning plants, windmills, solar
- L a
1 9I energy, garbage-fired plants.
E 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Did you ever have a guy who wanted E
II to rub cats on a piece of plastic?
12 i
(Laughter.)
4 I
g 13 MR. ROSENTRAL:
The ingenuity of man and wcman has s.
m E
I4 no limitation and you will probably get that.
- c2 i
g CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I am sorry I mentioned it..
15 z
j 16 i MR. ROSENTEAL:
I will make the notation that it was e
h I7 suggested by the chairman.
=
E 18 ;
(Laughter.)
P i
e 19 i CEAIRMAN HENDRII:
I can see it.
a F.
20 !
MR. ROSENTHAL:
But I feel that where you are dealing II with alternatives of that kind, they are not reactor speciff.c, t
22 that there ought to be scme way of dealing with them generically v
at least from the standpoint of whether they are technologically 23 feasible because this seems to be the basis of the litigatien of 24 25 contentions of this character.
That it is not t_d.r.ologically l
i
I l
S$
1 feasible, for example, to substitute for a thcusand er twelve-2l hundred =egawatt plant windmills, bic= ass, garbage-fired plants, t
3 ' or whatever - it =ay or may not be.
T 4,
There does not seem to =e any reasen why these should e
5 be litigated case, after case, after case.
R 3
6<
Now, there is an alternative, for example, such as e
R R
7 geethermal that might not be dispcsable on a generic basis 1
n 8
because the viability of that --
~
n d
9 COMMIS9ICNER AHEARNE:
The geysers exist.
z..
E 10 '
MR. ROSENTEAL.
Yes, the viability of that alternative i
~
5 11 might decend on what the surface area was.
But that is one
<3 d
12 example of an issue, type of issue, it seems to =e the Ccumission z=
13 might wish to at least censider taking up in a rulenaking context.
l 14 ' There are a number of others I will not burden the Cc==ission with 2
15, at this time.
But it seems to me that is worthy of exploration, a
l z
j 16 sifting out those generic need to issues wh!.ch are susceptible of x
H.
17 that kind of treatment.
6 18 CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
It see=s to me in Eb.e fall of
=
E 19 l 78, early '79, I don't recall whether we actually went out for
=
M 20 cctment en it.
21 <
MR. SHAPAR.
We did that was the Denton Report i
22 ' recenmendation and candidates were lecked at, and we asked for x-23, public co==ent.
With TMI the effort stepped.
24 -
MR. DENTON:
We had identified about a dozen issues and a
at topics for a generic 25 3 we did ask for public cc==ent en it ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
'8 I
rulemaking.
TMI did bring it to a halt.
I guess because of rhe l
~
2 fert that we have to assign resources, one or two mar.-years, i
3l to rule-make any one topic, it seemed easier to struggle along
( 3, 4
and do it when it came up.
e 5
I think the staff's main concern in this area is at
]
6; the OL stage where there is quite often need for powers litigated R
7j at the OL stage.
2 s
j 8
As Bill has remarked earlier, some of these things seem d
n; 9l very lcw productivity for the OLs, they might be all right for
?
10 cps.
I guess following TMI we made the decision, we just did not z
=
1 11 have the resources to put in to developing rules en a dozen k
I g
12 generic issues.
But if we 'could ' identify one or two that are
=
m j
13 still likely to be troublesome, maybe we should go ahead on
=
I4 those.
b i
=
c 15 !
MR. SHAPAR:
As a matter of fact, we are moving ahead w
8 1
g 16 '
on some areas where it is obvious there is a need for rulemaking, w
d 17 for example, looking at alternative sites at the OL stage you w
i x
18 should certainly in front of you a paper that addresses that l
G 19 l problem by rulemaking.
g M
l 20 !
COMMISSIONER 3RADFCRD:
Co you have a rough feel for i
21 i how many of the OL proceedings at the moment have alternative I
22 site issues?
23l MR, SHAPAR:
Not many.
24 i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD.
Any, more than one?
25,'
MR. SHAPAR:
I would have to look and get back to you u--
u
i I
19 1
on that, s
i 2!
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have no dif ficulty with the I
i 3
rulemaking on as many of these topics as the system can absorb.
w i
1 4; The only caveat I would throw into the list on far-cut alternativeg 5
la that the most voluble contention, it Jeems to me, in that A
6' area does not have to do with any one of them being a replacemenc e".
7 for a nuclear plant, but some combination of scme of them and M
i j
8 4 some of the more plausible ones.
It may in fact make more sense, 4
9i even if one rules out a contention saying that this entire plant 2
- rg 10 l can be done in by tbcusands of acres of windmills.
One has not 3
)
II necessarily entirely ruled out the question of windpower in W
12 E
combination with some other energy package.
=
r
-l 13 i MR. ROSENTHAL:
Commissioner Bradford, they are
=
g 14 l frequently considered in isolation.
2
=
j 15 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Right.
m i
E I0 !
MR. ROSENTHAL:
Some years ago in the ill-fated Seabrook a
f II ' proceeding scmething in the order of four days was spent, f
18 evidentiary hearing days, were spent on the wood-burning plant
+"
19 2
alternative that was being considered, not in combination with a
20 :
scme wood-burning plants and some windmills.
2I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And even at that, it is a reasonable 22 topic when vou are talking about, should we build this plant 23 or not.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Once you get the plant built, then
?
ALDERSON REPORTING C OMPANYo INC.
20 1,
the question, "Well, should we throw it away and start cutting
)
2; down forests" and so on really, seems to me to be unreasonable.
3; So, you would prefer us to stand back this morning
)
l 4!
from this item and let you sort through it and produce a list of g
- 5. recommendations.
i n
M
,g 6
MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
Re" 7
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You realize the result of this
-n j
8 morning's meeting is going to be a staggering do-bill on your J
9' drafters.
i 10 '
CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You oucht to look at that list z=
1 j
IIl that was published back in the fall of
'78.
E i
{
12 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see, John, in that memo of
=
g 13 yours there were five items connected with this afternoon's
=
5 14 meeting.
Was there anything that fell into this morning 's
=
j 15 category?
i j
16 l MR. SICKWIT:
Well, the generic proposal, as I remember,.
.s N
17 had to do with the unresolved safety issues.
a z
i 62 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Unresolved safety issues.
- e 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I imagine that reall! will n
s i
5 1
20 l be addressed, that is a combination of probably contentions and 21l the sua sponte rule.
But these were agreed.
Len is going through 22 an " agreed" list.
23 liR. SICKWIT:
That's right.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, let us move on to five.
4 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
3efore we move off four, one of e
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
21 i
i 1
NEPA issues that EDO had raised to us was the question of NEPA 2l power.
I gather by its absence on the list, that was not an i
3 1, agreed on option.
j 4
MR. BICKWIT:
No, hardly.
e 5
COM.MISSIONER AHEARNE:
It takes more than rulemaking?
nN 3
6' MR. BICKNIT:
No, that was meant to be one of the items
-n R
7; that would be considered under Item 4.
~
i n
M 3
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Need for power.
Lill's approach i
n d
9l was broader than the one that Alan just talked about.
=
z.
i E
10 MR. BICKWIT:
In both cases you had a rulemaking-excludi.9 E
2 5
i 11 l aspect of the NEPA analysis.
<3 6
12 COli:1ISSICNER AHEARNE:
But that would be included.
z=
5 13 MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
Item 5 is being considered i
E 14 by the Commission in another context and I do not think any w
-u 9
15 particular discussion is needed on it this morning.
-x=
3-16 On Item 6, I think that is right for Commission decisionc i
i 17 This was a proposal that came primarily from Howard.
We all xz 18, agreed to it, but I think it is probably best put forward by l
5 i
E 19 ' Ecward.
XM i
20j CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Before you pass and before it goes 21 ! out of my mind, when do you have in mind to come forward with the i,
22 i generic NEPA issues proposition?
1 ms 3
MR. BICKWIT:
I would really like to ecce back to you 23 }
24 : on that question.
I would like to poll our group and speak to 75 Harold and give you a realistic date.
q ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t f
22 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Keep in mind that in judging the 2
realism of dates we may be thought of as the occupants of a canoe I.
3' being carried down the stream.
Ahead is Niagara Falls.
This 4j paper is a piece of a paddle.
If we do not get the paddle before 5 ' we get to the falls, you know, realism is, plunge into financial e
E i
n 3
6 whirlpools 400 feet below, e
R R
7 MR. b!CKWIT:
That certainly was an element of what we n
E 8
had in mind by realism.
n d
d 9
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Gcod.
The same, I guess, would i
i E
10 ' comment about the five?
E i
=
5 11,
MR. BICKWIT:
No, on five I do not think anything
<3 d
12 further need be done.
I think the Commission can handle that z=
5 13 ! apart from these meetings.
=
E 14 CCf tMISSIONER 3RI.DFCRD :
We know exactiv what we are N
C_
2 15 i doing.
a=
g 16 !
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I will get you to explain that to e
p 17 ' me in a minute.
In the meantime, let's go on with the meeting.
E E
18 : Back to six.
i E
19 MR. BICKWIT:
Cn six I had deferred to Howard.
5
.n 20.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
Howard?
21 '
MR. SHAPAR:
The concept is straight-forward.
It is 4
2 22 that a carty is admitted to a hearing and his contentions are 23 admitted.
He should be permitted only to cross-examine and to 24 submit proposed findings on those contentions which he himself nas 25 sponsored.
If there is another party in the case which has other l
1
)
i ALDERS _ON REPORTING COMPA.4Y, INC.
I 23 I
contentions, each party should be allowed to cross-examine on 3
2 his contentions and not on some other party's contentions.
1 3l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What does Tony think about that?
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Can more than one party i
e 5
currently join in a cencention?
nD j
6 MR. SHAPAR.
Yes, they can.
If it is his contention, the R
- 7. he can cross-examine unless somebcdy is designated leave.
But
-c g
8I otherwise you can have and have had round-robin cross-examination d
[
9 by parties who have not sponsored the contention at all and are not ze y
10 i connected with it.
z=
E 11 l MR. COTTER:
I take it vou would not exclude state and
<3 g.
12, local governments from cross-examining on any contention.
=
i 13 ;
MR. SHAPAR:
I would not, there is a statutory right
-=
z g
14 : of a state and local government to participate in another matter.
b
=p 15 MR. COTTER:
My people feel, as the proposed policy 6
y 16 l statement I submitted earlier indicated, ;apport the limitation r.
g' 17. of cross-examination on contentions where appropriatc.
But I w=
i E
18 ' think that it is a matter to be exercised in the discretion of
=
ws 19 ' the presiding Board.
g A
i 20 '
I think a preparatory or -- statement on the subject t
21 would be well received and useful, but I think an absolute i
prohibition would be detrimental to the development of the record.
22 '
23 To the extent to what Howard describes is redundant 24, cross-examination, the solution to that resides in the control 25 ) and operation of the hearing; but to the extent that he is talking Al F)FR90N REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
,~,.
g 1
about limiting the development of the record by restricting 2
cross-examination, I would not support an absolute ban.
3 ROSENTHAL:
I think it should La borne in mind tha 4
the effect of repealing the so-called Prairie Island Rule which g
5, was involved here, there might be an increase in the number of en g
6 contentions filed by parties because under the existing scheme
-e=
a 7i o, things a party, intervenor, need not pu: forth a contention 1:..
N E
8' that contentien has been advanced by another part".
Under the M
0 9' Prairie Island Rule,. whether or not he has se forth that z0 g
10 ' contentien himself, he is. free to cross-examine witnesses who z=
j 11 testify with regard to that centention.
m i
12 If you cut off the right of an intervenor to cross-
=
o 13 examine exceot on his or its own cententions, that will encourage
=
2 g
14 these intervenors to file contenticns across the board in order
'z r
15 to creserve their richt of cross-examination and the right to x
x g
16 proffer proposed findings.
z d
17 '
In our study group I ind rated neutrality, basically, xx 6x 18 with respect to this proposal, I do not support it; I do not l
=w
(
19 particularly cppose it.
I think it has the one disadvantage to n
[
20 which I just alluded, and in addition I feel, as does Tony, that 21; the problem really is c.:e of repetitive cross-examination by a l
22 3 series of intervencrs on a c. articular centention.
It seems to ne 23 that is something which the Scards have the power to control.
i l
f 24 They shculd be controlline. it, whether or not it is a matter of 4
l 25 intervenors cross-examining en semebody else's contention, er i
i i
i 25 1
1 there being a contention that has been advanced by a number of 2 iintervenors, the Board has, it seems to me, ample powers to i
I 3 icontrol it.
.m 1
41 So, I really feel that this is certainly not a harmful l
5 ; change.
I do not know that it would really, in the long run, e
N l
3 6
accomplish that much.
e R
7, COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Tony, the Board chairman does
%j 8 i have the power, if there is a stream of repetitive questioning, to d
d 9 ; essentially close that off.
z l
0 i
g 10 l MR. CGTTER:
Absolutely.
z i
=
j 11j MR. SHAPAR:
But the next question is, is it done.
3 j
12 -
MR. COTTER:
That is a different question.
=
S 13 COMMISSIONER AHEARh'E:
That is a different question, but
=
x g
14 ' I think that speaks more to Tony's point of auditory guidance to I
.E 15 the Board as perhaps a preferred solution because if it is not
=
j 16 i being done, then it means the Board at the moment, for whatever e
d 17 reason, the Boards are not using the authority that they have.
z I
E 18,
MR. SEAPAR:
I do not buy the proposition that this 1
P 19 helps protect the record.
I think an empirical look at the 5
20 situation where this has occurred will show that it has not i
21 l improved the record at all.
22 I also do not accept the proposition that this might
~.,
23 encourage additional contentions.
You all will recall that one
.s not the 24. of the other things you are looking at is whether f -
25 threshold should be set higher for the admissions of conter tions, i
AL.DERSON REPORTIEG COMPANY, INC.
e 26 1
Even if that were not done, I do not believe that this would
-s significantly increase the number of contentiens, if at all.
3i COM!!ISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, I thought that'was one J
cs
- 4. of the points Alah was making.
Tell me why this is not logical
~
5 ',
that if we would take this step - and let us for simplicity assume e
n N
j 6
there are two intervenors - that they could just trade contentions N
5 7
and s4cintiv. nrc=.cse both sets?
1 N
5 8
MR. SHAPAR:
Well, anv. thing is ecssible, but I think n
dn 9
ene has to look at the likelihced in the context of what actuallv z.
i O
i b.
10 <
has been ha:cenine. in our. hearings.
I dust do not see that as z=
a very likel.v. crosc.ect.
E, 11
,l F
~
I was going to say, it is about y
12 :
CCMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
=
E 13 what I would do, Howard.
I think if I were re= resenting an
=
r#
14 intervenor group and wanted to be sure I could cross-examine, I
.-=
2 15 i would just subscribe to every contentien that cane into the w
j j
16 '
proceeding as being one that I was interested in.
Then, later en, w
H 17 if I did not want to cross-examine I would not file a cross-
.x=
E 18 examination file.
I E
19 MR. SHAPAR:
You would not have lost anything from the X4 20 present situation, but you might have gained sc=ething.
21 CCf1MISSIONER BRADFORD:
That may be true.
22 CO!S1ISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would think you would gain
- M
- ore, though by, if the Cennission agrees with the apprcach -
a 24)1 and I certainly agree with the approach on constraining extraneous; 25 er repetitive raising of the same cuestien.
But I think we would
!4 1
i
i 27 l gain more by the Commission saying that its policy is for O.e I
2 Board to enforce the authority they have and leaving it up to the l
3' judgment of the Board to do it, rather than laying out this kind
.m 4
of a rule.
5; MR. COTTER:
I think the coint is that the recommendation n
D, 1
g 6
in the absolute without provizion for the exercise of discretion Ro 7: by the Board goes to the heart of the Board's function which is Nj 8
to exercise its judgment in developing the record.
d 9
In these proceedings one of the critical elements is 2
eu 10 l cross-examination.
I could not agree more with the proposition z
l
=
4 j
11 that redundant cross-examination should be eli ninated and cuc 3
I 12 off, but cross-examination is crucial to developing of the full
,=
l 13 ' record' on. which the Board makes its decision.
=
mg 14,
33, 3.APAR:
I do not see it as a question of being d
s
=
g 15 l' the Board's prerogative in my own mind, I see it as a matter of a z
E I6 general approach to be decided as a matter of policy by the i
17 2
Commission.
w i
3
{
18 i What is the philosophical argument, aside frem the C
i 19 ' possibility of developing a better record for allowing a party 2a 20, to cross-examine on contentions which he himself has not raised?
2I The only philosophical justification one can create for that i
22 situation is the possibility of creating a better record.
It 1
23 seems to me the Commission can address that and look at it 24 factually in terms of what has transpired and is likely to 25 transpire, and decide it as a generic proposition.
1 j
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1 28 i
I I do not see it as a matter of Board prerogative.
Which-2 ever way the Commission goes on this, I see it as a matter of I
3l general guidance that the Cc= mission can and should give to the 4] Soards.
g 5'
MR. COTTER:
But it may be that what you really want is n
,9 g
6' that you substitute a tape recorder for the Board.
R h
7 MR. SHAPAR:
I think that is nonsence.
U
,q 8,
COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
But as a practical matter, you d
n; 9i must have situations in which there are two or three different 2oy 10 groups that are interested in the same issue.
Now, at the mement z
=-
5 II ' one of them sponsors and the others still have to file a plan 3
Y I2, for cross-examination.
No, you don't have to file a plan in
=
1 l
13 ' advance?
=
m E
I4 '
MR. COTTER:
It depends w'. ether it is required by the b
2 15 !
a i.= articular Board,
=
j 16 MR. RCSENTEAL:
There is no uniform requirement for it.
w h
I7 COMMISSICNER 3RADFORD:
That might be a mo 2 interesting
=
6" 18 que.< stion to address because I should think once you have the plan cb 19 g
you can tell whether at least the subject matter areas wi
likely n
20 '
be repettttous.
1 II!
MR. COTTER:
It is standard procedure in running a l
22 l
hearing, if the line of questioning does not look productive, is 23 to --
9 3
24)
CCMMISSICNER BRADFORD:
Cut it off.
25 MR. COTTER:
Make a showing what the line of questiens
,t 1
L.
- l -
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
29 i
i j!
intended to disclose.
i 2)
MR. SHAPAR:
I would not want to leave the impression I
3' that it is easy for a Board to cut off unproductive examination.
4l The Commission has repeatedly given this guidance in the past and 5 i
say that it is honored more in the bceach than in the 1
5:
must e
1 n
n 3
6 observance.
The Commission can reiterate that kind of auditory e
M 7, language to cut off unprcductive examination.
Maybe this tine
-n E
8' it will be followed, n
d d
9, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It depends what you mean, Howard i
i o
4 c
10 I agree that it is very hard to n off a question, the first i
=
E 11 '
unproductive question.
But after five or six minutes one begins
<3 i
d 12 to get a feel, and some tine into the 15th or 20th sinate it is z
=
i-5_
13 4 not so hard to, as Tony says, request a shcwing of where all l
A 14 this is going.
.+=
R 15,
MR. SHAPAR:
There is always the temptation to let it m
g 16 in for what it is rorth for fear of being reversed by cutting it i
M.
17 off prematurely.
x
.=
E 18 MR. COTTER:
That is what Boards are supposed to do,
=.
i E
19 exercise that kind of judgment.
=
i 2
20 '
MR. SHAPAR:
But one has to look at the result at the i
21 l end of the tunne-.
I 22 MR. COTTER:
The result at the end of the tunnel is 23 that thay are generally not reversed.
MR. SHAPAR: -Is long pages of unproductive cross-24 )
25 examinatior.
f.
A ALDERS ON REP ORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 30 l
1 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Can we cut off this line now?
2 (Laughter.)
3; CHAIRMAN HFNDRIE:
The chair does not find this line of s
I 1
4i discussion very profitable any more.
What is the sentiment along I the table?
e 5
6 MR. COTTER:
I do think one other point
~
e N
7; CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let me see what the sentiment along 1
N the table is.
I think I know where it is going.
Peter, what'is 8
8f n
dd
- 9. your inclination on this one?
t 10 !
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I am really wirh Tony.
z
=
1 2
11 i I think by all means --
<3 d
12 :'
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Stick with the more general z=
i 13 instruction to the Soards.
o=
14,
CCLTISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Limit cross-examination, hur if aD E
15 ! a party seems to be contributing on another party's contention, I w=
T 16 >
think that is worth allcwing.
32 g
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Vic?
w 18,
' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I am not sure.
I think in a r
e E
19 sense if everyone subscribes to every contention you will no 59 20,
have changed anything.
It may be worse.
I'm just not sure.
4 21 I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
John?
i 12 CCMMISSIONLR AHEARNE:
I don't see it as solving the 23 problem.
I think it would be an interesting and probably in the 24 short run a useful restriction, but I am more interested in 25 trying to get out the Licensing Board policy statement which s
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYm INC.
a.3
{
embedded such specific Cc= mission guidance, I would read it, 1
2I perhaps strengthen it a little but.
But the cross-examination i
I 3i plans are something that the Board should be asking.
At the m
4 coment it is draf ted within the judgment of the Board.
I do not e
5 know whether it would be appropriate to make it manda: cry.
nN g
6 But at least the stress on all this, which is, I read E
7, our strong guidance or probably more imoortantiv.o at least as a
-nj 8
long as we remain, that the Cc mission will approve strong z.
managenent by the Scards.
I would rather go that way chan this N
9 10 ue wav..
z I an inclined to the sane view, and lI CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
i
'd 12 I do not think it is particularly profitable to keep sweeping it z=
4 u n_ and dcwn the table.
It Just does not seem to me to have in E
13 g
14 '
it the kind of " yield" that would make it worthwhile to keep 2
u6 15 j
ha==ering away at it.
=
.g 16 Why don't we advance on the next one?
N I7 CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is exactly the kind of aw E
18 ruling you want from the Boards, and in abou: the same time frame.
i l9 ZiR. SICKWIT:
On the next one, we had some discussion M
2 4
=
20 i
- o. 4 e
2I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Keep =e in mind.
Maybe I-can make 22 a suitable ruling on that one, 000.
23 MR. SICKWIT:
We have had discussion of Item T and Tony-1 24) had wanted to pursue this en his own and get back to the i
t 25 )
Commission en this.
I don't knew if you want to elaborate furthes
-ls AfLDERSON REEORTING COMPANYo INC.
32 l :
on your thoughts here, i
s 2l MR. COTTER:
I think I pretty well laid them out.
I 3
talked to Judge Morris who is the head of the Administrative Law 4
Judge Conference and that office within the Office of Personnel l
g 5. Management.
I have written a letter and expect to sit down 0
j 6 ~ with him some time this week to explore it further.
R 7l He comments, of course, that the Office of the R
i j
8' Administrative Law Judges retains complete authority over the i
e5 9
assignment of the ALJs to an agency,' the use by an agt
.y of.
~
3 10 l ALJs who are located in another agency.
z i
h 11 l There may well be some ALJs available frca the Civil
~
3 p
12 l Aeronautics Board and the Federal Communications Commission for 5
I 13 ' some work, but the issue is so much in the air that until I
=
z i
g 14 ; talk to him I really cannot address it beyond that.
b i
=g 15 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And it may be that some of those i
x i
g 16 j have come from the Licensing Board in the past?
a y
17 MR. COTTER:
There are about four or five Administrative w
i z
i 5
18 i Law Judges presently located in other agencies.
I r
1 E
19,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Who have served on the Boards, M
i 20 l presumably?
21 MR. COTTER:
Yes, who have served on the Board.
The
?
22 difficulty with the problem is, with the Office of the Administrati 23 ' Law Judge as the middleman, you are thinking in terms of 24 j referring NRC licensing cases.to ALJs located in another agency.
25 That referral is strictly controlled by the Office of the t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
33 I
I i
1l Administrative Law Judges.
3 2'
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought we had in mind the I
i 3l possibility of getting those ALJs referred to us.
'w l
4l MR. COTTER:
You mean hiring them?
i 5l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Whatever term might be placed on e
M n
3 6
them, borrowing L.em, using them, hiring them.
R l
5 7j MR. COTTER:
I don't know.
I 8!
MR. SHAPAR:
That was
_aggestion put forward by --
n i
I d
9 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Certainly, if the other agencies Y
l 10 l are having slack times in their life, maybe we could.
z MR. DIRCKS:
I have a feeling that if the Commission E
11 '
l 3
i j
12 l wanted to go in that direction, knowing the attention that the
=
i w
M i
13 Administration is focusing en this subject, we could approach
,=
-j 14 OMB and they would probably be very helpful in getting us b
l 15 ' assistance in getting people assigned to this agency.
sz g
16 l MR. ROSENTHAL:
I think one of the things you should M
d 17 ' bear in mind is that like those in any other occupation, the s
=
18 l ALJs come in various shapes and sizes, and quality, despite the l
3" 19 ~ rigorous process that is employed in selection of ALJs, that 5
i 20 ! regrettably the quality is not uniformly high.
21 I just wonder what we would draw from the ranks of the 1
22 ALJs.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That is a good question.
24 5 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Bearing in mind also that first the 5
25 ALJs as a class, and I think properly so, zealously protect their i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
t
34 I
1 ! independence.
They are not very prone, as I understand it, to
-N l
2 i take much " guidance" from the functionaries in the employing 3 l agency.
They will also be sitting by themselves without any kind
)
i 4,of leavening, as it were, of their efforts.
e 5,
So that, without getting into whether theoretically it n
j 6 'is a good, bad, or indifferent idea to scrub in part or in whole
~n 7
the Licensing Board concept in favor of ALJs, I think that you n
n j
8 lwill probably want to, before you go that route, focus on the d
I d
9 realities in terms of the kind of talent that you are going to be i:
10 able to get, and the kind.of direction that you are going to be z
=
i j
11 ; able tc provide these ALJs.
S 1
i 0
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to me in the short z
~
=
13 ' run the question is not one of scrubbing the hearing process, I
~
=
x i
14 mean, that is not likely to happen with the three-man Soards; but 5+=
l 2
15, whether we ougnt to try out alternatives.
x i
z j
16 MR. COTTER:
It was tried for seven years and rejected, 2
d 17 ' the first seven years that this agency existed.
w
}
18 ;
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, there were a lot of
=l 19 ; reasons for that which may not apply now.
M 20 '
MR. SHApAR:
It was not a rejection becaus= of their i
I 21jincompetence, it was rejected for other reasons.
It was not i
22 rejected because the agency was given authority to use both.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
So, I think we cught to i
least in some cases and exercise the flexibility 24 ; try it out, at 25 that we have in this process.
i Al nFR40N RFP ORTING CC MPANY.lNC.
O I
35 1
MR. COTTER:
My remarks did not reach to the issue of n
l 2i substituting a single ALJ for a three-member Soard.
l 3!
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I would try that.
,a o
I 4!
MR. ROSENTHAL:
I thought you were really considering it us I
i s
5i as a generic --
1 e9 3
6l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No, no, we do not know how it e
R 7l is going to work.
i U
l 8
MR. COTTER:
I can tell you that there are four panel d
9l members now, including Ivan Smith, who have sat as ALJs, and every d
10 i one of them was opposed to that idea.
They do not think it is a E
l h
II l good idea to try to substitute a single ALJ for a three-member 3
i y
12 ! panel with the kind of scientific training that the three-member 4
~
( ~T 3
i 13 ;
panel brings tc une process.
x.
g
=
5 14 ha. DIRCKS:
Couldn't that be supplemented by making 2
1 w
I 15 + available technical assistance?
E I
i d
16 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
4 M
N 17 MR. COTTER:
No, it could not, w
E 18 l:
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why not?
2
=
i w
8 MR. COTTER:
Well, for a number of reasons.
One, at g
19 l n
20l the hearing itself you are developing a record which essentially and 2I goes to scientific questions of safety of the environment, L. j 22,
that sort of thing.
That record is developed in part by questions 23 f rom the bench.
24 '
I am not sure what you envision in terms of technical 25 assistance, but the normal use of technical assistance is after I
-l
)
i, l
I!. the fact.
You certainly can't have a technical consultant r~%
t 2 iwhispering in an ALJ's ear during the course of the hearing.
I 3l MR. DIRCKS:
Are we the only technical agency in
(~N, 4 i Washington that has to rely on this type of technical assistance?
e 5
MR. COTTER:
No.
6'
' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Our Boards, I think, have a 7.
7 j dif ferent role at the moment.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I would s
l j
8 l support Vic's proposal for a trial, assuming that at the same 6
d 9 ' time we modify what the role of the Board is.
2,l, tl 10 l MR. COTTER:
I,am preparing a-paper to try and lay out z_
l-11 i reasoning in response to your proposal.
One section of it was m'
He is strongly y
12 I written by an ALJ who served in a technical area.
(
R x_
j 13 ;
opposed.
He says that the kinds of proceedings where technical
=
l 14 1 assistants are used, in a financial field or a medical field
~
from ours.
z I
2 15
.or.something_like that, are entirely different sz j
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I will be interested to see I
f li 17 that.
w z
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do I gather from both Alan t
$ "19 ' -and Tony, your description of dae OPM and ALJ system, L that there a
. 20 :
would be difficulty in-saying that,_ yes, we would like to use 6
i 21 some of these people but they must pass our screening panel?
I 22 i MR. COTTER:
Oh,'yes.
Number one,-the process for s
i 23 becoming an ALJ is that you go through an elaborate system.
'24 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am familiar with that.
i 25 ',
MR. COTTER:
You:must have trial experience.
There i
ALDERSON REPQRTING COMPANY. INC.
I i
J/
} [ 2.w e
.g.4 b..,. h. g e e,.,..?
.. a,,. e.f a,,.s w.
3 y a,. :.. a. s.. a... A.
a a.
n v.
.= s.=...l ' -. '..
7
- k. a *<* e a s *.. ' ".'.' s ". e d a" *y' e '...#.3 - .'*..a...'.=.
- ^.- o.. y.' 'v. e **. *.-
3i'
'. e.'. a
- a....' a s.
- ".. =. >'..A.
.=.77.-,-.". ~c"'4 "a
. '. =,,..a.
".. =.
=-
a 4.
-s
,,a.
,,. aX a.
.. t
- u. mn.,,. : z..t e.
4
-..C,o.
- A.
m a..
a e
5
- C ".."."...2 0. c"....
n'...: e' 2.". ' -
c.'...
- a-= s-
".. =
a
"..=..a.
a a
s..
f n
. c...,w.. e = " s e ; w ",
ga..
.-.- a a.-
=. a.... ";
=s "^"
a..-
e, 6,"yu
..s
..o
- w
.j gn-,a_
., a n.
.. a.. g.u a.
m.,.:. %. g c g v.a.
.=,
f v.ic,,~.e n n g gn g.a.
.,m, g a. T a. n.. y of.
a,
e g
.v,q. C.e r-i-r..g.
..k.g
. k.. e.=."..C., W O.-
- /',',,'w'.-
.".*.C.,*..'^..
.' a
".w=*..
- ^
x g
A.
~*
n,s
, up,
y a a..'n
... n..u.e, m s Aaea.A % y.
9 a.r.~ e
..~.
a a v a.
2.
.a.
10 i
.h. 3..a..o 4.,w.,
., s e.1 a,.
i 2
v.
u.g A.n,7. n.r.a g,
. '. a.n g.,.
~:: e ^.s eu..r.:.: = r v. r...z.u. r.n'.a.. 2, 3 a ^-. = =
- ..-",y.*.
2 ]2 ..,...3 ,,", s e..s e ^ " s .a. '.-
- a-a-m.- a ~ ^ *. '.
s.. 3,.,.. g y-vCass..-.". c~ce, - =.. e - -.. ; ".a,c s-a. e - r ' a. ". a.. - a ,..'.a - = 'a v, =..- ="" 13 ~ r r . = _. 14 . e."e s o.# 2 " - a a, . a.. = ~r =... ". ".. =. s a "; r ". a a ". a. r..# we .=-a. c h 1l -. e..=. :. a. " "a e u=.- a. .. c ~;,,... ;.- "..=".a. .= s.'. '.' a.- ^' r. 15 ',;.'..y- ..,..,i 2 w w. .w ? 16 .-~~ ass. g y w I r/ l Cr a. ua e..a - ..e
- =
r y., g,-~ a. - - -.. -- ~ n y E 18 ".3..- e" .i - =.. n'..,,. 's e e ..,.,..'.-am o 3 r.- Casa- .-. =.% a. ".. - 19 .u.. e- ...e.p, = .9 ,.., sa- .. y 4 x =. -t 4 20 = ". a...=. a. ~. ^. "^". t 21 i .v.. .c...n'.O '.. - c'... -r "..' s.= : a... ""; ". a s ". 3 a, d n. e i 3t a_..... a.._ g... C'ses. n.~ o \\I
- a. c.,.. - ~.. a.a.
w Cu.n :...e. e.. r e. s c r. ..w. e ..... a , a..,.. a. a
- a
..a i, . e.:. a.=. '. 24 e ~ '..- a,.=.
- a. -." a..- :-=.==,. -
.a .w-25,- ..e s. ..,., :.. =.nn.,n., : e. I ? 3 ALDERSON REPORT lNG COMPANY. IMC.
r 38 I MR. ROSENTHAL: The ALJ was a requirement of the m I ~ 2l Administrative Procedure Act, and what the Atomic Energy Act 3; in effect does is grant us exemption frca the requirement of the 1 4 APA which nermally would necessitate the use of an ALJ. What it g 5, tells us is that we are authorized - not ccmpelled - we are na g 6 authorized to use in lieu of the ALJ a three-member Licensing i 6 7 Scard. So, the agency has entire discretion. N k 8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But if we did want to centemplate fert d 9 z, say, some class of hearings an ALJ. -y 10 MR. COTTER: I am absolutely in favor uf using ALJs z=[ II in antitrust and civ., penalty cases. E i i CHAIFliAN HENDRIE: If we wanted to use a single 12 it woulc-ave to be an 13 person presiding heac or a proceeding, n =.. m 14 2 Administrative Law Judge. a= I 15 MR. ROSENTHAL: Using one individual. wz y 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Tony, does that save you much w if we were to say the category cf cases that you can do this f 17 = x 18 ' for is everv.thine. that is not semehow directiv. intertwined with 6 ' 19 ' m reactor licensing and safety? +. 20 MR. COTTER: At the mcment not an awful lot. I have 21l four sitting antitrust Scards and every one of them has either 1 three lawyers, or two lawyers and an ecencaist on them. 22 23 - Comi!SSICNER 3RADFORD: The econcaist,'I take it, is 24 a problem for the other cases. not 1 MR. COTTER: It is simply tying up three lawyer 25j 1
O e i 39 l 1i chairmen. I. 3 ./ 2i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But are they lawyer chairmen I i 3i who have something to do especially in antitrust, or are they i w 4 J 4l people whom you would be quite comfortable shifting over to a t I { 5' reactor licensing case? e A i a j 6, MR. COTTER: They don't have reactor licensing cases, R i 8 7' thev double up. 5 8i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It takes a long time to write N d 9j antitrust cases. 10 : MR. COTTER: It takes a long time until they can z = i E 11 ' convince everybody to settle <m i 12 ' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's see, is there some z= 13 ! possibility, or have those hearings gone too far to allow replacing = x= 14 these Boards with single ALJs? c 15 l MR. COTTER: I don' t know the answer to that. My guess a = f 16, is it would be possible, but I will have to do my homework. w d 17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It seems to me even what one w= l 5 18 ! is trying is this limited use of ALJs, every little bit helps = H 19 ! in freeing up the constraints in the system, and it will give us l M l 20 l a little experience. l l t 21 - COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, we have some experience l 22 i because we have had, I think, single LAJs for some -- 23 MR. ROS ENTH AL: ' Enforcement cases. l 24 MR. COTTER: We have had a couple of civil penalties in 25 the last few years. Ivan Smith has been sitting as an Administra-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. t
n 40 I tive Law Judge. s' i 2' MR. ROSENTHAL: What would you contemplate, if this I 4 3i were tried on an experimental basis, in terms of providing of m ? I 4 the ALJ with the requisite backup technical assistance? I would e 5 envision, for example, if you scrap the Licensing Board concept n I 3 6! altogether and just went with ALJs, v.ou would have to have a o -n 5 7 croup of technical advisors, c.erhao.s in various specialities, i i i 8' that would be available to the ALJs to assist then in the dis-n ,g d 9 charge of their duties; unless you are assuming that the ALJs z. 10 all have in addition tachnical training running across a wide z s se t. at v.ou had a tec nical member an or :leic. a _= vartetv. 3 y 12, legal = ember in one individual. = i E 13 But if you are not assuming that, the ALJ: need = 14, s u c. c. o r t. Now, if you were just cotng to experiment with this x= x -= 2 15 and perhaps have a couple of cases in the hands of ALJs, the x g' 16 ' question then becc=es, what kind of technical backup you will i 17 ' allow them. Will you allow them to seek the guidance of the I x= E 18 technical menbers of the Licensing Board panel to assist, or would E 19. vou provide them with some separate, distinct technical assistance x i .5 20l that would not be contaminated because it was an NRR, or 21 I whatever? 1 I 22 ' I think that is one of the things -hat would have to a 23 be considered even if you were-going to do this en a limited 24, experimental basis because they need help, there is no question 25 about that. i 4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 41 j 4 I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I cannot answer for Commissioner s 2 Gilinsky's proposal, but my proposal, in the place in which I 3! support him, has in mind a restriction of the role of the b 4 Licensing Board which would then make it less necessary to have g 5' extensive technical backup. N 0 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY: I am not sure that really makes n b 7; an awful lot of difference. You are talking about whether they 'n l j 8 can raise issues themselves? d 9 MR. SHAPAR: Whether or not their essential role is z j o i 10 < a just to decide the matters. 6 z= II i CO!1MISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't think that is going to 3 12 E affect whether or not they will need technical help. m. i I3 5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: They will love the amount of = x 5 I4 ! technical help, I would suspect. w z' ^ 15 ! 6 MR. ROSENTHAL: I might say with due respect that if it z d I0 is a matter of controversy that deals with seismicity and they are t 17 s only supposed to decide that matter, speaking for myself, I s y 18 would have, I think, great difficulty in passing an informed ] 19 ' judgment en all of this testimony in conflict ccming from 9 M i 20 seismologists who speak seismological language, not English, 21 without having the aid of somebcdy 'who has some experience in that i 22 i area. 23 so, I would say your suggestion does not ccm ort me, it 24 would not comfort me-if I were put in that position. 25 MR, SHAPAR: Ecw do the District Judges do it? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 42 i i 1 MR. ROSENTHAL: They either do it poorly, or they are 2 getting help from somewhere. 3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: They defer to the judgment of -m ) i 4l the licensing agency is how they do it. I g 5; MR. BICKWIT: Not in the District Court. O j 6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think they would need some R 7l help. u i g 8l MR. COTTER: That is why this is a companion problem, dd 9i who wrote the decision? Y 10 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The ALJ writes the decision. E= g 11 MR. COTTER: Does he, in the seismic area? 3 12 MR. DIRCKS: Well, how does it work now? = 1 5 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That is why we are talking i E g 14 I about this and we do not know how it is going to work out. I am j-15 l suggesting that we try it, at least it is a plateau in the water. = g 16 l MR. DIRCKS : It seens, though, that you get the A N 17 flexibility. For example, you have a licensing case where many w I w 18 ! issues are raised, seismic being one of them. You do not have i i' 19 ; always the seismically qualified technical member of the Board g a 20 on that case. I 21! MR. COTTER: You have a scientifically trained member, t MR. DIRCKS: Yes, but he could be trained in waterfowl 22 ' 23 biology. 24 l MR. ROSENTHAL: Biomass. 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, for example, we might f ALD ERSON REPORTING CO MPANYo INC.
43 1 go beyond the antitrust cases to things like expansions of spent w i 2i fuel pools, rather than to go straight to licensing. 3-MR. DIRCKS: There are going to be a lot of those T 4 cases coming up. Does it make sense to have a three-member Board e 5, sitting on sc.ent fuel? -nn 3 6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That is a cced suggestion. e -n R. 7. MR. COTTER: Those are the three thines that I mentioned j 1 N j 8 in my original memo, d d 9, CCHMISSIONER GILINSKY: Good for starters. Gcod place z. E 10 to secp, ecc. z= 5 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I must say, it seems to me that in <3 'i 12 terms of moving our ceneral licensine crecess along that this z= l g 13 proposition has fairly limited gains built into it. Those gains = 7 f 14 ccme about, I think, cnly frem whatever greater efficiency a 's 2 15, single human being may have trying to pull a decision together, a* i 16 as compared to a Board of three havine. to acree, get a consensus y A I 6 17 view en points of the finding, s w l = 5 18 MR. BICKWIT: And to be available. t E 19 CRAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, the "available" cuestien = r 20 ' says that we are unable to staff our cwn Licensing Board panel 21 ; to handle the workload. Now, agreed that if we are new about 22 l to ccse into a time when there will be a great excess number of 23 hearings in process at the same time, we certainly have a 24 i resource transient with regard to Board members; but if the way ? 1 25 that you deal with that is te start farming out certain classes i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i I ~ . of proceedings to unknown ALJs who are not experienced in the 2; atomic energy law field, it is not so clear to =e that that 1 3' fact is going to be much of an aid to the process. 4 What I can see is a string of spent fuel cases and g 5 si=ilar sorts of cases, antitrust cases, stuck cut under n N 6 presiding of ficers over whom the Ccmaissica has remarkably less -u A 7 I control than it has over its own Scards, an Acceal Scard; sending M i 8' a messages via the general counsel in plaintiff fashica every =cnth, c 9 j "Could you please move that thing?" ~ z: h 10 In the meantime, the aid which that ccnfiguration = 11 E will have been to the main-line nroblems of the ac.enev_ in 3 d 12 licensing will or_ course have been t6 relieve sc=e c:_ cur s, car z= 1 l 13 . lawyer members of the cases that the ALJs would have. 3ut I 1 14 9 wonder if that is really likely to turn cut to be enough of a ez= h 15 ; relief of work 1 cad so that it has any really useful effect on = 16 3 the main-line licensing cases in terms c:- greater avalz, abi., ity. x i 17' I guess it is.in the right direction, but I dan't know, = 6 1 18 3 sc=ehcw it does not sound to =e as though it has nearly as much e -n ,E ac..ceal to it as recoc.nizing that we are coing to have a Lie nsing J 20 1 Soard panel which is going to be busy as a one-armed paper hanger 21 ' over the next four or five years, and hiring some =cre fulltime i 22 4 people into the Board. 3 23 Now, we hav already agreed, it see=s to me, here on L 24 I this side of the' table, that in fact we will supplement the 25 licensing panel resources. We now have the " freeze" unfrozen and f 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
r ,2 1 I assume that those slots are available and there cught to be 2! pot together notices and so on, and get en with it. I i 3I CO2'2CSSIONER !..IEARNE: Did that ever get reflected in m 4i the staff review memo? e 5 CHAIFl!AN HENDRIE: I do net knew. San? Jchn? n N 3 6 MR. HOYLE: I an unable to speak to that, 7 will e i 2 7I research it. E 8! CO!!!ESSICNER AHEAFliE: Secause I think we did agree N d 9' that sc=e of the unfro::en slots would go to the Boards. ieb 10 I CHAIFl!AN HENDRIE: Yes, we said there was sc=ething i = 5 11, like nine or ten that were goinc. to c.c in there. I asked the <3
- 4 12 cuestion about three times at various meetings and we all agreed z
=. E i3 ' that it had to go that way. = =
- i 14 CCt'2!ISSIONER AHEARNE:
The way the unfrczen slots + -= 2 15 ' mav.be c.et allecated, I think it is en this side of the table. g= f 16 MR. DIRCKS: It was discussed, and I think we picked t i d 17 it up, we are looking around in the '31 budget. s= 18 CHAIFliAN HENDRIE: In terms of the reallocation of I, 19 new slots.vou have his e.roblem, vou have his problem, and M i 20 ' Harcid's problem. Was that exercise? 21 i MR. CORNELL: I was going to mentien, the offer is i 22 i out, people are responding. We are waiting for the hiring 23 f ree::e. Until that happens, we don't knew. 24l CHAIFliAN HENDFII: Ecw many are available? i s 25j MR. CORNELL: How many offices are overwerked, who is i 4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
f O 4 46 i underworked. j, 2l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Except we had 149 offers that had been out, frozen. That did not take us up to the new freeze 3 -m 4! ii3it-I MR. CORNELL: The last count I'saw was about 25 over. ge 5 nN CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Over the 33? 8 6! e M ?, 7 MR. CORNELL: Over the 33. N CHAIPMAN HENDRIE: That is surprising, I thought we 8 8, n d d 9 had fallen far enough. At any rate, I am confident that there wil) i 10, be recm. z_ CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE: My point cbviously was that I j jg j <3 think that the Commission saw it has to try to argue anc ensure g j2 z i = l h 13 that its offices get slots because sometimes at the staff level = the voice of the Commission staff is not as 1 cud as the voice E 14 : a t i is ' of the directors-w= 16 ' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Gee. 3 A g 17 ' MR. DIRCKS: But you always -win the arguments. .a- = COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, if we know the argument. 5 18 ! u I 19 (Laughter.) x a 20 l CHAIRMNA HENDRIE: Look, Tony says he has a paper in i preparation, what he believes will be a useful-paper for us to 21 read before we come closer to a decision on this item. 22 Vic has before us a note to the Ccamissioners to 23 24 track responses, proposing to use ALJs on certain kinds of 25 proceedings. I guess your view would be that if you got a majorit) J ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
g 47 4 l 1 to agree with this, why, the kinds of proceedings would best be 2; determined by people like Tony, counsel, and so on. 3 1 You were asking for replies by 3-13. I think that 4 idate will have to extend. What I suggest is, we allow Tony's S 5 paper to ccme up before we regard this as answerable. OK? nM 3 0' COMMISSICNER GILINSKY: Sure. ^n=" 7, CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, sir? -n j 8' MR. BICKWIT: I would like to throw one more option d.: 9' on the table which was not agreed to by our group, which would i 10 be to change the quorum requirements so that the chairman could z { II i conduct the hearing in the absence of tne other members, the 3 5. 12 l part time, which would often be part-time members. = 13 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Didn' t hhat go out for comment? = z 5 I4 ' MR. BICKWIT: What went out for comment was that the w. = 1 6 chairman could rule on procedural motions in advance of the ^ 15. l = hearing. Under the rules you have the requirement of a two- _al 16 i
- h I7 member quorum at the hearing.
That has not gone out for comment. = E 18 This is an item on which there was some disagreement i b I9 i in our group and also there is a potential legal issue involved. sw 20 When you are reducing the quorum requirement to that extent, 21l1the question is raised, have you really got a Board. 22 COPliISSIONER AHEARNE: And the argument for it is that 23 they cuuld neverthelass read the record? 24 MR. BICKWIT: Yes. The' compelling argument that brings 3 it to mind is that one of the problems on availability has been 25 L t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
48 1 part-time menbers not being able to make a given hearing date. I 2I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But it is enough if one of the 1 I 3 ! cart-time members makes it. s 4l MR. BICKWIT: That's right, i i 3 5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: So that you have two, nU i 3 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: As it is at the present? 7f R MR. BICKWIT: At the present it is enough if one can 1. j 8' make it. d:! 9I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Two is a quorum, ieg 10 MR. BICKWIT: Two is a qucrum. z r II, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: If you had only one and anything 3 12 came up that* required a ruling, you are saying the legal question = i l j 13. there would be whether that one person could in fact rule. a l 14 ! MR. BICKWIT: That's right, and whether the idea of i
== t 15, two me=bers of this Board reading the transcript at the con-x= g 16 clusion of the hearing really does such violence to the notion M l 17 of a Board that you could say that you didn't have one. I w l E 18 l' = COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I guess I am having difficulty l r I H i l { 19 with that last point in that if it is acceptable for one to i n 20 : become sufficiently familiar to reach a decision on the basis of l 1 t 21 the record -- I 22 MR.BICKWIT: That certainly is the argument. Obviously, l 4 23 as you go down this trail you go farther from the notion that e 24 was originally contemplated as to what would be a Board. If take the 25 l you had the Commission making rulings by one person, i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
f 49 l l 1! statute out of it, you had just a ecmmission and one persen was i 2l making rulings, you would say it was no: a commission. 3! COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Coes the Board has a similar ! rule? 4, I g 5l MR. ROSENTHAL: We are similarly governed by a quorum. n 6; Again, I might indicate the consideration that favors this - and 7. . there are a number that disf avor it - is availability. I was R 7i i A j 8i looking again yesterday at the ccmcosition of the part-time J = 9i members of Licensing Board panels and a very substantial number ic I 10 i of them are university protessors. This has historically been g$ i j 11 ' a problem in terms of scheduling. 3 y 12 j They want the hearings, understandablj, in the summer = h 13 or during recesses. There is a limited number of classes that E l 14 they can miss. I E 15 l MR. COTTER: I an a little confused because, as I wx j 16 l understand it, Jack Buck's study said and Janet Fry reminds me ^ \\ p 17 ' that there was no problem with availability of part-time members. x i x 1 18 i I understand the limitation that you are talking acout, E E I I 19, and it is true that generally they will try to request that = M 20 ' they only be assigned to cases that will involve lengthy hearings 21f during the summer time, but that is a scheduling problem. That is i 22 ) my problem. 23 ' Ma. ROSENTHAL: I don't know about a study. I can 24 { just tell you that as I monitored these cases from the standpoint 25 of appellate review over the years, seeing the scheduling i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
50 l l 1; decisions that are made, many of them have been made with the 2j convenience af the part-time Board member in mind. Fairly so, 3 and by taking into account his convenience the hearing is not 'N. l 4] commenced as early as it might have. 5l I do not have any statistics on it, but I think it is e 6 I d. 6 a virtual certainty that if you are dealing with people that are j R i [ 7 not retired, in occupations such as teaching, there is not the j 8' total flexibility, that you are going to have to do things to d o; 9; acccmodate that scheduling. 2 E 10 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Tony, do you see that as a major E 5 11 ; problem right now? d 12 j MR. COTTER: No. z ,= = 13 CO!1MISSIONER AHEARNE: What is vour reaction to the l 14 j idea of having just one person? I 2 15 i MR. COTTER: You may as well go to ALJs and forget it. wz g 16 ; The principal vitue to my untudored mind of having these i 6 17 ; three people sitting there is that you have an engineer-physicist wz 5 18 on one side, and you have an environmental scientist of one kind E l 19 ; or another on the other, to supervise the creation of a record. M 20 l That is a critical element in these kinds of proceedings. 21 You have the lawyer chairman in the middle, seeing that 22, it is run according to law. That gives you a unique capability. I 23 It is the closest thing to a science court there is, and this is 24 r the kind of procedure that requires it. 25, MR. BICKWIT: The question is whether on a given day, if i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 51 1 two of those part-time members can't make it, whether the \\ .) 2I hearing ought to be postponed. If it is not a problem, then there s 1 3 is no need to fix it. 4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would like to ask a personal 4 e 54 question. You view the Licensing Board, then, as close to a M i v. j 6
- science court?
-n i 7; MR. COTTER: My language may have gotten me into a lot i N l 8 of water that I am very unfamiliar with, I d:! 9' CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Don't get him out, Joe. z; E 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I was just going to advise him E_ lE 11 ! to clead the "Fif th". <5 y 12 (Laughter.) 2 13 l MR. COTTER: All right, I will just mul'. about that. M I4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Feeling on quorum reduction? 2 i b _v 2 15 ; COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I am not keen on it. wz j 16 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Before you get yourself cc=mitted -- a 1 d 17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I was about to say the same wz 5 18, thing, if semebody could persuade me that there are great p i 19 ; savings involved, I would take a longer look at it. s' g a I 20! If we are talking about going from three to two, I 21l would also take a longer look at it. But contemplating what 22 was ostensibly a three-member Board being represented by one 23 individual for days at a time just seems to me to be the wrong 24 thing to do. 2d COMMISSIONER GIL7NSKY: Do we have the power Oc do that? I i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
52 i I MR. BICKWIT: This is the issue I raised. I think vou I 22 do. But it could be argued that you departed so substantially I i 3' from the notion of a board that you don't. I i4j MR. SHAPAR: This is the legal issue that was looked g 5 at in connection with a quorum of two, and there are available N +g 6' legal memoranda. R b 7 MR. BICKWIT: Obviously, it was concluded that a quorum i 8l E] ' of two was legal. J 9 MR. SHAPAR: I think you are right. You would have ? .-g 10., to look at it pretty hard, I think. E II i MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, I think there is a difference 4R Y I2 between sitting up there as an individual and rendering a = i 13 decisions as an individual. a m 5 I4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: To hold one day of a heariJ; and i $j 15 ! the others come back in -- x j 16 i MR. SHAPAR: Well, the argument goes to that they did s f I7 ; not have an opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, \\ E 18 1 the sweaty palms. That is the Cotter argument. But I agree C I b I9 ' with Len that we could find a way of doing it if the Commission s M 20 I was so inclined. 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Does anybody want to talk in favor 22 of the proposition as being of any notable aid to the process? MR. SICKWIT: I was the one who brought it to this 23 24 discussion, and it rests on the assumption that the availability 25 of part-time members at Board hearings is a limiting factor. i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.23 l l 1 If that assumption is off, I would recommend against it. n i 2i It seems to me that what I was suggesting was that if Tony is i 3l coming back on some of these options relating to who is going to 4' handle the adjudicative functions, this is an option that ought 5, to be looked at, and the question of availability ought to be e n N 3 6 Icoked at. a 7j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, let's see, if you went N J j 8 along with this preposal, what would limit the possibility of d o; 9, one member sitting throughout the whole hearing? z E 10 i MR. BICKWIT: There would be no legal limit on it. The 3 1 j 11 understanding would be that Board members were to be selected, 3 i y 12, even part-time Board members on the basis of the likelihecd of = M ~ 13 their being available at a given session. l 14 4 But if it turned out that on a given day two part-time k f 15, members were not able to make the session, then you would have az 16 ' the session anyway, g t i 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: This does not sound to me like w F i it is worth beating all over the bush. E 18 l E 19 - MR. BICKWIT: It certainly is not, Mr. Chairman. I M i 20 ' CHAIRMAM HINDRIE: I think it is a fair criticism of n 21, the process, the licensing process as it has worked in the past. 22, It is a fair criticism that there have been cases and circumstancer a 23 ' in cases where scheduling of hearing days and so on has 24 ' accomodated the interests of members, you knew, not missing a 25 class, or not missing grandma's golden anniversary party, or 3 i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l j 54 l l 1 whatever, and that there have been some stretch-outs on that m i 2l account. It would be surprising in any judicial system if that l i 3, kind of thing did not go on. O} 4! What we have said in the current circumstance, trying 5I to improve our situation is, we want to put more people into g a l 6 the panel. Tony is looking and has been looking, and is already R 7; making re-arrangements of assignments to Boards in an effort to s i l j 8' prevent Board conflicts of panel members between hearing Boards d n 9 that would lead to that thing. N I percei#e to be the general 10 i That, coupled with what i z = [ IIl sense of the Commission, it will go forward with a policy 3 i \\ on g-12 statement adecnishing Boards and all parties to please get ^s 5 L 5 13 with the proceedings. I think we will create an atmosphere i 5 14,' where that kind of conflict and delay while it may still occur, x E i 2 15 will certainly be minimized. l w t g 16 It just is not clear to me knocking a quorum down, a M 17 quorum of one for a three-person Board, I would love to have w=ww 18 ' that for the Regulatory Commission. c8 19 i (Laughter.) g M i 20l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You did not support me last i 21 year when I proposed that. 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, you know, we all have our 23 ' mistakes and we have to live with them. 24 ', COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I don't remember that you 25 stopped with a quorum, John. (Laughter.) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
j 55 1 i ) l CRAIRMAN HENDRIE: It just does not sound to me like N 2l this one is worth haggling much at, unless somebody would cor.e l l I l
- 3. along and any, "This is a significant problem and we need some way l
i -s 4 4' to deal with it." l e, 5 MR. BICKWIT: I am making my recommendation contingent l l N 3 6 on that finding. I guess it is my legislative training. l e l R l 3 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't find any evidence for that 1 I i 8l finding. I just don't see much point in pushing this proposition. 2M i d n 9 :i Tony, when were you going to get your ALJ paper up? l 3. 10 l MR. COTTER: Either tomorrow or Friday. E 5 11 CHAIFb9d HENDRIE: That is 3-19 or so. i 3 d 12 ! CO!!MISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's see, you said there were z 2 I [ ' 13 ' four members that had sat as ALJs? Are they ALJs? E E 14 ' MR. COTTER: That is one of the questions that I have ww m 2 15 to explore with Judge Morris. ax 16, CRAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is kind of a question of how 3 1 i e p 17 i live their designation as ALJs is. Are they live on the list a= 5 18 ; when they are over here? E 19 ! MR. COTTER: They say, once an ALJ always an ALJ, they 1 i M 20 may not be occupying an ALJ slot. 21 ! CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: OK. Now, look, we have gotten down 4 u) 22 to nine minutes to twelve, and my inpression is working 23 down the list of items on Len's page 5 I do not find much profit ~ ) 24 in the day's effort. On scme items I think I did not lose ground, y' l 25 ' but I can't see anything very clearly where I gained any ground. J ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
56 1 l 1 1' We do have a number of things which are due papers, ,g 2l due later this week from OGC and from Tony; papers due from CGC l 3' on that contention business more like next week, I guess. . m 4' The Secretary came around and it turned out he has I 5 discovered where in that box called "in the mail" the financial a M \\' n j 6l qualifi cation paper was, he actually produced a copy, d 7l MR. HOYLE: It should be in your office. M j 8l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: He attempted to lay it before me. I d i 9i refused to allow it to be laid before me, but it is in the offices. \\ 10 l So, we have that to chew on. 3 i h 11 i It seems to me by the time I can reschedule this line j 12 of meetings we will have several of these work products then to =3 13 ' chew upon and hopefully can do a little better than we did this g 1 = l 14 morning. r 15 - Now, before we quit, in the last three minutes of the w I z 16 l meeting, Len, help me to tick off some of the items that I would j w b. 17, still like to discuss because it seems to me in some ways we w= 18 ' have been dealing with trivia this morning and there are some c 19 ' nontrivial things stalking around out there that we ought to get b A 20. our hands on. 21! One of them is John's Item No. 7 from his memo, "How I I 22 ' should the Board's treat unresolved safety issues." That is s 23 perhaps part of, but one of the subdivisions of a larger item 24 which is the role of the Boards. What about the sua sponte powers; 25 and the spreading of t."ose sua sponte powers. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. t
l o 57 I 1' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think at some time we will have i 21 to get to discuss Tony's proposed statement of policy. l 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes, the statement of policy. What 3 4, else would you tack on that? 1 1 e 5i MR. BICKWIT: I would not tack anything on those two 3 N N 6l unless someone in our group has an item in the list of 30-odd 0 N 8 7 that we initially submitted. I 'n E 8l CHAIRMAN HENDRII: The March 3 paper. n d 9l MR. BICKWIT: Yes, that he wants to push. d I E 10 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I was going to ask, where are we 5 11 ; going to cover all of these items in Category B? We had worked I d 12 our way more or less down through either eight or nine, or z= 1 m E 13 ' something like that, and we ran on 17 parts in it, and it ran E E 14 through to 27 items. Are we going to pick up all of those when a Hz 2 15 we talk about the policy statement, or are there pieces of those az j 16 that ought to get shuffled out? s y 17 MR. BICKWIT: In my view you will pick up everything s= 18 i that realistically has a chance of being accepted. i H 1 C 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Does anybcdy else want a view on = M 20 ; that, does anybody think there are some pieces in that March 3 21! category B that we ought to get on the table, apart from the polic'l 22 j statement discussion and these others? Hearing no loud outcry -- 23 CCMMISSIONER AhEARNE: I have one cues
- ion to ask while 24, we have these people here-l 25 j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, go to it. i! L l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 58 i 1 t COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It is a resource question again. s i 2I The freeze is off, is that correct? 3, MR. DIRCKS: Well, we have not yet received a letter. ' N. i 4! COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Has the Appeal Board, then, been 1 I J s 5 able to go back and see whether they can still rescue that? i 8 ] 6' MR. POSENTHAL; I was told that personnel called all of R 6 7; the legal interns, not only mine but those of the other offices, s j 8 and the report that I got was that both of mine had exhibited dn 9; sufficient patience to hold out. I spoke myself with one of them i 2 5 10 ! last week, I have not been able to reach the other. z_ h 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: We had at one time twc outstanding 3 y 12, or were about to make of fers to two lawyers. Are they going out, = I i g 13 ' are we getting them, the lawyer chairmen? z 14 MR. COTTER: I assume that we do. i I u 's 2 15 MR. DIRCKS: I assume it is going through, I did not x \\ g' 16 check. i A I l 17 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The Secretary tells me that with t a . regard to the personnel and the slots, and so on, the EDO had E 18 i i P l l l 19, specific direction from the Commission the other day to ge: l M 20 cracking and hiring people. Let me also make explJ. cit now on i 21 behalf of the Commission that he gets the slots he aeeds to fill 1 22 up. 23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Fine. 24 CH:.IRMAN HENDRIE: What else do we need? Well, we need to reschedule this confounded meeting for furrher continuatio 25 i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
F 59 1 and I will do that as I am able. s 2' MR. COTTER: By slots to fill up, you meant frozen? i 1 3; CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You had a couple of frozen people, t 4i and in addition you said, "Leok, if I am going to get over the s 5 hump for the next few years I am going to need another" - it was u nn j 6' something like nine "a couple more lawyer members, a couple more -a i 7; environmental members, four law clerks, a secretary or two." l na j 8 OK, the Commission has said you will get them. dd 9! MR. COTTER: Thank you very much. i ^.h 10 ' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And, as is the custom in these ~ -c i j 11 matters, we will be glad in due time get the recc=nendations frca 3 y 12 the EOO as to how it is able to render said slots. = i 2 13 MR. DIRCKS: Well, we are working on where we stand = 5 I4l entirely. We are building into this planning thing ten here, t _f 15 j four over there, four for Harold. But whenever you slice the w= I g 16 l salami, others lose it. m N 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That's right. Look, out of the wz { 18 two-hundred or whatever we thought we were going to get in '31, Ib I9 ' of which we are now getting about 160 or scmething like that, g 5 20 we are making further inrcads on that because of Tony's needs 21 l and Howard is going to have to have a few. What that means is 22[i there are going to be major re-apportionments of the nea that 23 slots. 24 I guess all I can say.to all concerned is, I'm sorry, 25 that's the way the situation is, that is what is going to happen. j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
60 1 Now I think you had better get started getting notices ~, 9 2' posted, or whatever, out there for those people because the 3 sooner you do that, why, the sooner you will start seeing sc=e ,3 4 help in the shop. j g 5, OK, thank you very much. n i j 6 Whereupon, at 12 o' clock noon the meeting of the ~n 7l Commission was adjourned.) i 8! N i d
- i 9
4 5 to ! i g it a 4 12 i ~ z l 13
- s a
I4 g s E 15 i a T 16 wi F 17 e i z, E 18-I 19 X l .b 20 ~ i 1 i 21 i i i 22 ! 23 4 24 1 25 4 i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.. ~. . -. = ~ a._. =-.s .x 4 J 6, i t i l s.*4 %, v ? s=a.n
- p. r s s L n. e'% 3.*./ y..lf.*t..".O.q*U.'
ea?? m m ^% M 4 Jr e r ... 3 <, ut .a...;. u...s.. .u.. z.. =...u.,. s
- a. n..a..p COMMISSION MEE':'ING i
r i i.. h e T.a, e: c : : Discussion of Revised Licensing Procedures ' a. *. .'.:.. c = =.. *..e.- .u.a _- - n 1,, 19e^1 ~,.....,.s.. .s ...3 c,. ,4 ,.;ashincten D. C. .a .=,..,..-,.a.
- u.,..,
<.e...._-
- e.,
...s. ... =.. u..s, . g, w, ,,4... .-. w,. 4 3 i M. E. Hansen
- e..~.e.s s, -
....w.-
- r..,.;.,. n. r
. g.. i b'. /hwu ( $.$g.... -g V" e.S S.- b. 2.. e.
- g 6. 2. n...
- e. 4..-
I ,h' t i I l I l. e f I E t. .g 1 -= v -e-- + -, ~ - e a -ewe s --,. ~ - - - ,-s-r-s+ -,,,er
l l 4 7..! f.. ~ ..g.... 4 en-UNITED STATES ~ ,e e*. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM!SSION - l e-. .a e % u r - wasmnatow.o.c.2oses )nesle March 10, '19 81.".. ,2=~ -l-Y MK***' i., _; ^ ~~jM 'V ~" - - C e ? -
- ~- Q.W.
aq.--- -.::;,. -. c6- - :A.. 1 .-J..---.. s
- ,we
.2. ,fk k:.:1L W Q x w & ~._ k:...e: . 6- +.:. &;e. -i - --. w..,- n_ % c .,, c s . :a.r -c a.-...-- .u. ...u a.. - % -,pa s ~- , _sw:w=--~c:. c -+:...:.;-- ,e. , y p k.....".v.M:". O--*-t... - $ G:r- 'T- 'y.-.* va. r r -.w". sac 2, a MEMORANDUM'FOR: Chairman Hendrie d '-y -r.. E.,,7--- Commissioner Gilinsky - 9_ 5;-i.~ Connaissioner Bradford e. Tif50.n-.- Commaissioner Ahearne 's MP 'O ' dj.,.:. .m, _. n.._ ) Leonard Bickwit, Jr. FROM:
- .- y_ y-.
General Counsel , _ ' ~.~ --.m _._.w. .,xg._ 7 k$r.yk r :
- .~
Attached are several charts to be used in connection with this afternoon's discussion, on licensing procedures. Attachme.nts... cc: OPE. -.- OCA SECY EDO OELD l ASL3P ASLAP c, D g y y' L' e , gp a pffpf l s~ l ..}}