ML20003H648
| ML20003H648 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/28/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19353A596 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-46FR17216, REF-10CFR9.7, RULE-PR-2 SECY-81-202B, SECY-81-252, NUDOCS 8105060568 | |
| Download: ML20003H648 (55) | |
Text
c O
k
..V..o...
W.' n -iW U...
.. g%.,,'. U:' :.NCCI2.AX. ?2MER2 CCMtCSS'CN,...c,.
- ~ ~..u.. r. m t. s, I.
. b, h,#
)
r" hth
'v syj ~ y
- < $ s. &
. -. < yga -x. m ' u ':.e a e k g.:s, 2.: <;:..g t.c
(
.: 1 r. e/ % W 4
e
.v w?!h Y
' ff.
l'.i,
Y lh
- !b dk$b./Th.h ?,
Y h
f hk kh},.;
1 g.3
' f[ f
$ $ $ %},,l $j%n - w n e t n.
- n. {:. ;.(".u 7
COMMISSION.MEETIN 4 (:N :.sy.
.j,; c@eg,
!;.),,, p a $ M PC
"'I
-y ? % g K:y;I_
r:%:
+.
3:.uru
%'4 h;G1.V.C.A:,sslfG;OSLik'4.M b;;,yna$d:'g, W
sf ~NlW?@7;?.
Q
.y
.:bW WDb M Qf
.' f
.D Y
'b&$hh$$$hV&,. Q?^-
ld'hh~h,9,.
.j;
'f$h' @f
&, %,g% ~,:
.$. J hWkk. 1.p' div4c"4c: wMIf? : : ' -
n N, o. -y; :.
h,%
^
99
?
, L..,-
-Tt r
. ae
- f. ?In 't a Nt ar ef:f(l &$.
.j?$,$:$)N,}ll0.{
$5&SiNIG5Y.'O!?b%."
i
~ ' 'f.h..f DISCUSSION OF, REVISED I,ICENSING PROCEDURES,.4,'if.;
.. w. k, w, 8 [ %
' M,. - g.,..%.f.f.a.y-.s.$QhM+(w%**Y.b
~. - ' ' ch'..:34' W %'
%: '?.
V.-
<,...:;wg?4 Q
?p :
.'m.. ?...V
. ": * ^
C"
.c' YNN2 bg$..%y'l I!_s,tN. - -..
- sds
....e - - s..
s
- m;v -,
. ', N y /G h...,l:-}
,12
~
. % 3.%)
?$
?.-
F "' ~ ; 1 g., -,.
9, kid lNh, - - -[
/Z '-7 b:YT
.. mp
'e k hk-h s,h. 'y mqpom.t.smus[,i.'b.s.dhkM'-d
- t l
1r
. w.a. gam hh
}
i f
5*
'I
.5
' '. _*. ;m. ttf,q{.:,p;%. g@.n - re.,
.t'.
~.Y. v:g_ h,9,.,g
..;g. y..'gp.;
,_ f.
- 3..
e 4
'~.
CA'"E : April 28, 1981
' r' PAGZs:
1 - 55 c,-
,u.)
'. '..;.v. y ~ u -..g r.m.. %.s 8::
~
,.(:..
~
..._y
,.~
a o. 2:
A;: ' - Washington)'D. C.4'2i' *
'_.". f,.
,~.
- rw s.
. ~.
- t...
.,.,e.
u.....n..
r,
.,.c I
i l
I
.HDERSOX REPORTD'G
~
j_
t
{.
i s
4ca n.--_:_2 An., s.v. vasec en.
. :. ^:c'4 OCCd
=
..gy ft
. b=
s
I IATIONS:lP)
UNITED STATE 5 0F AMERICA
~
~
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S
G 4
DISCUSSION OF REVISED LICENSING PROCEDURES ;-
=
5
- *
- e 5
6, Nuclear' Regulatory Commission R
Room 1130 8
7 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
]
8 Tuesday, April 28, 1981 ed 9
2' h
10 The Commission-met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m.,
!!!l 11 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman, presiding.
LJ y
12 PRESENT:
h JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 13 l
14 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 2
15 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner U
y 16 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner I
g 17 l ALSO PRESENT:
!ii 18 LEONARD BICKWIT TONY P. COTTER 5
SAMUEL J. CHILK DENNIS K. RATHBUN 19 WILLIAM J. DIRCKS HOWARD SHAPAR ALAN S. ROSENTHAL HAROLD DENTON l
20l 21 0
22,
i 23 0
24 :
25) 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
j
\\
g13y 1-sv,
-O
" ' ' ' ' * * ' = " * * ' ~ " ' = = = = * = * * = * * ' = -
'**b'fl'-
"=* = d ~
~
IP= m Yuclear 14gulac2ry E-
- J
' sics held om i
=
d
- n. cha causi.sadan's officas as 1717 E St=sec,,-$. W., Wash 1=g:=a,
. D. C.
S.a -*d r sas open cm public, a===>r= and obserrac1=n.
Stia.===**7: has =nc beer :sviared, es==ac= aid, or edi:ad, ami i= zur concaiz **= -^=.
4 The==musc=1pc is i==andad, solaL7 far ganars.L 1=fo==a=i==s.L
~
pu= poses.
As p;svidad, by 10 Ci19.103,1: is %2e pa= of de faz=:aI. oz # 'M :sesri of d d *tm of de :ia=:ars dise=ssed.
Izpr===1** of opdM is -lis =z=sc=1pc da. : sic sacassa=117
- sfiec:.".1..s.L der =- - * -= " ces or *:= 7 d a '*.
No p':a=dd ! cr a:ha paper =sy be. filad, wi:h. de CQaica i= a=7'p=ocWd r as -la
- ssu1= of c= add.assed,.m a=7 sea ama== or 4 4w; c==-'d-M 5 = ~ d ~,. az=spe as the.C * *=d.m =sy an: hor':a.
I e.
l l
l l
O a
O P00R OR R id.
\\
2
...R _O. _C..E.E _D _I. _N. _G.S
?
1
~
~
-2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's come. to order.
We wi31 turn
~
~
.3 this morning once again to licensing proceedings and continue O
4 a series of meetings on this subject.
5 What I would like to do is look at the rewrite of l
6 the proposed policy statement on the conduct of licensing y
2 7
proceedings.
X l
8 The last time we dealt with this subject, we dd 9
completed a fast pass through the draft and left the room 10 instructing the Counsel's Office to prepare a new version to iEl 11 work on.
We have that.
It is called SECY-81-202B dated D
y 12 April 24th.
@35 13 We also h' ave a mark-up copy from Vic.
I cannot tell i
l 14 whether you worked off 202B or an earlier version.
U 2
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It is an earlier version.
E f
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't we start down 202B and as t[
17 we will look at your changes as we go along?
I have a couple a
b 18 as we go.
h 19 By way of minor editing, the third line in the middle R
20 paragraph on that page, let 's change "these hearings" to 21 I "the hearings."
Let's delete " power" in that sentence.
I do 1 h 22 not know whether the intent was to be full' power.
It either 23 '
has to be full power or delete.
l 24 Next is two lines below that, "this situation is a 25 i direct consequence...
the language here depending upon the
\\
3 1
- inclination of the Commissioners has gone from. indirect to- -
~O
~ 2 direct, a compromise which I propose is, to say-the situation. -
3 is a consequence of the Three Mile Island accident.-
O 4
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I woul_d buy that.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Finally on the last line of that l'5 l
6 paragra'ph, "the TMI-related requirements" over which we A
7 labored so 'long were not only for operatirig reactors but X
I l
8 also you will remember for operating license proceedings.
dd 9
would strike " operating" and specif.y the TMI-related requirements 10 for reactors.
3l 11 Vic, you wanted to delete the TMI-related reouirements L3
(
12 and just say "which specified changes necessary..."
5:!
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
To reactors as a result of l
14 the accident.
n 2
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I do not have any problem with 5
y 16 that, "which specified changes necessary for reactors" or d
6 17 "to reactors"?
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
To.
18 5
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I will put down "to."
Someone 19 j R
with a better command of the prepositions can tell us what is 20 i
21 i best.
22 MR. BICKWIT:
I do not claim.to have a better command
()
I 23 but "for" sounds a lot better to me.
P 24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: ' hat is the way you originally 25,
wrote it.
r I
8
4 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
"For reactors."
O 2
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If you want to use "to,'! you.
3 sitould invert "necessary" and " changes.:."
If you want to use -
0 4
"for," leave it the way it is.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
He sounds like he knows about l
6 prepositions.
" Changes necessary for r'eactors as a result of 7
.the accident."
K l
8 You have one on the bottom of the page, "and an d
d 9
unprecedented number of board proce.edings i
h 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
We have "... board proceedings El 11 are scheduled for hearing in the next 24 months."
b y
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I thought all these changes h
13 improved it but I did not notice,any of them were changes of E
l. 14
_ substance._.___ _.. _._ _.._.__. _ _
2 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I did not think they were.
U f
i6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Can we endorse them in blanket?
d 6
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I was going to go through it page Ye 18 at a time and give people a chance to find other things and h
agree on these and then hopefully with you all in a desperately 19 R
20 weary state., I would mumble "all.in favor" and say "aye" and 21 "so ordered" and hit the gavel and we would have it!
(LAUGHTER.)
h 22 f 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There is something imprudent 24 about a magician explaining the way his tricks work before the
-]
25 show starts.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i g
r 7
5-
- 1~
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is part of the trick. ::
- 1. ~
O 2
"An unprecedented number of h. earings are scheduled - -
3 in the next 24 moitths."
O--4 Is it true that ati' least half. of these proceedings - - -
5 concern operating licenses?
l 6
MR. ROSENTHAL:
Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In Tony's original language K
l 8
long ago when he said at least halfi of these proceedings d
(4 9
involved construction permit and operating license proceedings.
10 People then wanted to concentrate on OLs, instruct the cps 3l 11 and have the fraction.
U y
12 To save someone from counting, how about a substantial f.3 5 13 number of these proceedings?
W 5u l
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You could say "many."
2 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
" Lots."
"For operating licenses...
U f
16 strike " pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, as amended."
~
l a6 l
((
17 What is it, Vic?
If these proceedings are not?
l 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Concluded prior to the E
19 l completion of construction.
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The cost of such delays could 20lI t
l 21 '
reach billions of dollars.
i O
22,
COMMISSIONER GILINSxY:
I thought our estimates were 1
23 not that high.
,m
'd 24 ;
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I thought we have $1.5 billion to 25 '
32 billion.
i i
L
6
--14.
MR.-DENTON:
That is my number, between $1 and $2 -
O l
2 billion.
It depended on what assumptierns we used about 3
completion dates and whether you went b.ack and picked up-O 4
so-called embedded costs.
5' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I took what Harold cited and.-
l 6
extended them fo'rward 'to other proceedings that are not' g.
R 7
currently included in the estimates; but what wotild be covered.
X l
8 by - the-policy statement and figuredi if one did-that, the d
d 9
statement was fair.
zi h
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The cost of such delays could reach z
_l 11 billions of dollars.
The Commission can seek to avoid or reduce U
y 12 such delays.
Whatever measures are available that do not Q5 compromise the Commission's fundamental commitment to a fair y
13 14 and thorough hearing process.
I assume that will be all right g
15 with everyone.
l 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes.
as g
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
5:
You do not want to admit to li 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
3:"
19 contentious?
I 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think what happened is t
21 l
" contentious" never actually got written in there.
The word I
h 22 !
" contentions" was used.
23 MR. BICKWIT:
" Contentions" is in the revised version.
24 ;
This is based on the version just before-202Bi-25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are chere any significant
7 differences?
y
('
~'
2 MR. BICKWIT:
No.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I do not have any problem with it -
i 4
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I was dealing with contentions.
1 5
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What wo_uld you do with
~:
l 6
" contentious"?
R A
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Iiwould keep it in.
X
~
j 8
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I wantito start a new paragraph dd 9
where it says " individual adjudicatory boards."
That was the 10 intent of the original draft.
At the end of the paragraph that 3l 11 I have now created, with the greate'st fondness in the world u
y 12 for trees and wildlife, I wish we would say " adequately (b)gb 13 protect the public health and safety and the environment."
a l
14 Len, there is not any difficulty in ignoring the 2
15 defense and security findings, et cetera.
Certainly in the E
16 context of our. licensing, safety and the environment are the 7o 17 principal points we struggle with.
5k 18 MR. BICKWIT:
It is what you are emphasizing.
=
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You do not see any problem citing R
20 these and not other findings that have to be made?
21 MR. BICKWIT:
No.
,Lj 22 ;
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
I 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Do we regard sabotage as
)
subsumed under public health and safety?
24 25 MR. SHAPAR:
It is both health and safety and ccmmon i
=
t
S 1
defense and security.
O 2
CHAI'RMAN HENDRIE:
To the ext.ent it a'fects'-.
T
~
f O-3
-electricity supplies, it is common defense and to the extent.
4 it r'adiates people, it is safety.
a 5
" Fairness to all involved. in NRC's adjudicatory 3
l 6
procedures requires that every participant fulfill the R
g 7
obl'igations imposed by applicable law.
X l
8 MR. BICKWIT:
I would like toispeak to that.
d d
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.:
z h
10 MR. BICKWIT:
I think som~e of these obligations z
l 11 will be impt 2 not by the regulatiens or the law but by
~
U g
12 boards in accordance with such law and. regulations.
I would (h)bg 13 prefer the original language, or "by and in accordance with 14 applicable law and Commission regulations."
2 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I agree.
d I
f 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I will buy that.
What about "the" w(
17 instead of "its"?
10 MR. BICKWIT:
"The" is fine.
E 19 l MR. COTTER:
" Obligations" and " imposed" are redundant.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Ignore that.
OGC has struck l
21 !
"also."
()
22 Let's come to who informs on the staff when they are 23 delayed.
This point was not well settled the last time we
(_)
24 l went around.
I finally instructed the next draft to read the 25 '
way 2023 reads in order to have something.
i
[
L
N 9
-G Vic haa proposed the Board informs the EDO..There 2-
- was discussion last time which convince # me the staff. members- -
3 engaged' in a hearing ought to report tiltemselves into the EDO O
4-
.when they are going to run late in any. appreciable-fashion..
- 5 What-is the opinion up and down the table?
~
j 6
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I Will-agree with Vic.
g R
7
. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I,will apply the reverse. of A
l 8
. Victor's "you-me" principle, a converse, a reciprocal.
d d
9 COMMISSIONER AKEARNE:
You have now confused me as to i
h 10 what the rules.could end up being. -
g 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You had a problem with this last U
y 12 time.
Do you want to state it before this majority view goes 13 down and stays there?
l 14 MR. COTTER:
I' guess my passion on the subject has 2
15 subsided somewhat.
My original obj ection was it seemed to be U
y 16 sort of making a managerial tattletale out of the boards.
It d
i 17 seems to me if the staff has problems, they are certainly 5
$i 18 sufficiently independent and mature enough to deal with them h
19 in the fashion the Commission directs.
R 20 MR. BICKWIT:
I never had any passion on this.
Our 21 conclusion was the same as Tony's.
Our recommendation initially 0
22 was it should de the staff informing the EDO rather than the 23f board.
b 24 l
~
MR. SHAPAR:
I think there was some widespread passion
,s t
l 25 for a footnote.
ALDERSON REPORT 0NG COMP /XMWs RC
l I
10
-1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What are we trying to do?. :
l'
~
.0 -
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Maybe we can put it in the-fine
{-
~
l
~
3 Print.
Anybody who wants the board in.there care to reconsider -
O 4
on the basis of the last five minutes of conversation?
'5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
My preference would have been~
l 6
for the board to inform the Commission and then us to inform.
R A
7 the EDO.
X j
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That is the arrangement'that d
ci 9;
sounds more logical to me.
I assume those responsible for the 10 hearings do inform the EDO.
If you-want to go further, yo'u have El 11 to have the board who is acting on behalf of the Commission U
d 12 inform the Commission which is managing the rest of the z
13 organization.
l 14 I put in the " board" because I thought that was what Y
2 15 was intended.
It was in the nature of a correction rather than f
16 a substantive change.
The only system that makes any managerial al g
17 sense to me is to have the board inform the Commission and the U
U 18 Commission to act in its =anagerial capacity.
5 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would agree with the board R
20 informing EDO but my next preference would be the staff informing 21 the EDO.
I Q
22 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I realize the staff is a m
i i
23 t special sort of party but you do not have the board informing GV 24 the vice president of some company that his lawyers have not 25 been as prompt as they should be.
I
11 1-MR. ROSENTHAL:
The genesis of all of this was a ::I -
('T
~
- 's/
2 question which reached an appeal board as to whether the
~ 3 licensing board had the authority to te}1 the staff that it
~4 must-produce a particular document by a.date certain..What:- _
=
5
~ the appeal board held at that time was,that-authority was g
~ ~
l 6
lack'ing but the licensing board was of the view that the staff R
7 was' dilatory, that'if the licensingiboard could see to'it this 2
g a
was brought to the attention of the-Compl:-*.on.
dn 9
That approach commends ithelf.to me.
I do not think 10 we ought to be in the business of going to the EDO and telling z
~
=
{
11 him that we think their subordinates are not acting with the u
6 12 proper degree of promptness.
It seems to me if the staff is 3
()
13 unable to meet deadlines which it is aware of, it deals with a
l 14 EDO itself.
2 15 It does seem to me that if the licensing board is of U
16 the view that a proceeding is being unnecessarily delayed do 6
17 because the staff is not meeting these obligations, the E
18 licensing board should be telling it to the appeal boards and O
19 l the case may go to the Co= mission which is the ultimate 20 l controller of the adjudicatory process.
I 21l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My view is many t.imes the staff I
22 will be in a situation where they will not be able to meet i ( 23 schedules because of competing priorities. I think the way 24, the Cc= mission is structured is the staff works for the (]) Chairman through the EDO and I think this should ce cal'.ed to thd 15 i h ALDERSON REPORTlWG_COMPOMV, DRC,
12 1-ED0's attention that there is this board viis'that this is now' - O I d5 not think the staff can attempt ~ accurately 2 a problem. 3 .to portray what the board's opinion is pf it's not-being able to ~ mU The 4
- meet a particular schedule. whether it is serious or.not.
.-5 _ board calling it to the ED0's attention would. then highlight E ] 6 that in this particular case the board -is saying that.is a - serious problem and that is' anotherf important piece of 7 A ~ g information for the EDO to address in terms of allocating his d d 9 resources. 2i ~ h 10 MR. COTTER: I am concerned about even. handed operation E l 11 of a board. Might a more palatable compromise be in the form la ( 12 of directing the board simply to send copies of orders ' granting hb ~ g 13 extensions to Any party, the Commission or the EDO, whoever = l 14 you thought was appropriate? 2 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: 'I think in itself that does not U g' 16 do much. There may be good reasons for extensions. There as g 17 would be copies of extensions floating all over. $li 18 MR. COTTER: It informs you when there has been a k 19 requirement to extend a date. R 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I think the real issue is 21 if the staff is not meeting a requirement that another O 22 : extension of the Commission believes to be important, then it l 23 ' has to be called to the attention of the managerial line. 24 Where Vic and I disagree is where up that managerial 25 line that attention ought to be called. It really is a problem i i
13 1-for management process and management of agency resources. ~ 2 MR. COTTER: The solution is,to have that component ~. 1-3 of management which is ruiining into the: delay to inform-its. U - 1 4 managers. 5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Except: the fact that there.is ~ l 6~ a delay does not necessarily mean it is significant. With the ~ -7 R 7 constrained resources the EDO has to apply across the many X l 8 things that their resources have toi be applied to, there are d d 9 going to be delays in many projects whether it be inspection, 5 10 research, review, licensing. The juggling process of t'rying 3 to keep as few things delayed,'it :is not a-process of keeping l 11 D y 12 nothing delayed. 13 MR. SHAPAR: Beyond that,.the EDO has the authority l 14 to redirect the resources himself if he thinks it is justified. $i 15 When it comes up to the Commission, the problem in effect has y 16 been solved and the Commission gets the explanation and the fix d g 17 is in. E ti 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Presumably if they are running = 19 into trouble -- R I 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Please don't use that language! 21 COMMISSIONER GIL'INSKY: When you are running into 22 i trouble,-you tell Bill about it, if it gets beyond your ability I ~ 23 ' to cope with it. There is a mechanism for redirecting effort. O 24 l If it sets to the Point where the d re reet= 11 25 of this has not worked sufficiently, the board is working for i l
14 I the Commission. O ~2-MR. DIRCKS: A basic rule of management isyoudEnot 3 elevate things to the top that can poss;ibly-be resolved at the - O 4 lower levels of management. If Howard has problems,-he can go - 5 to Harold and try to work it ou' t at. that angle. He does not b j 6 -necessarily come to me on every issue he has a-problem with 7 NRR on..If he cannot resolve 'it there,- he will come.to me. 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The board is not part of dd 9 this same management perview. 10, MR. DIRCKS: It is on the. same level. It is two z _j 11 components under one agency. What ~you try to do is work out U c5 12 things between components before you elevate everything to z O5 13 the top of the apex. 5a E 14 - MR. - ROSEN' THAL: -The board -is - accountable to the - w 5 2 15 Commission. The board, if a proceeding is delayed, it is the E 16 Commission to which the board must explain the delay, not the D.
- d i
17 EDO. It seems to me it is for that reason that if the board 5: k 18 regards there is a reasonable delay which is making it difficult 3 19 or impossible for it to fulfill the responsibilities it has R 20 to the Commission, it ought to be telling the Commission about 21 it and not the EDO. O 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Presumably the board has 23 expressed itself to the lawyers and there is a certain amount O 24 or back ane forth e1scussion.
- wouse no: expec: the board 25 '
to send up notices about delays every time something got held up. L
I l i 15 1 MR. DIRCKS: If.you 'are looking at management. __. O i 2 principles, you do not elevate everything to the_ top. What you 3 _ care saying is there are other considorations than management --4 and if that is the case, you swallow the. medicine. - Wilat you try to do in anyjorganization 15i avoid 5 l - 6' getting everything floating into the top of the agency and try 2 7 to resolve things at the lowest posisible level. X l 8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I) am familiar with that d d 9 principle. 10 CHAIRMAN' HENDRIB:' ~ With the benefit of this E l 11 enlightening discussion, let's coun't heads again. With regard tej 12 to whether when the staff is responsible for a delay, the Os staff tells somebody to be decided [or the' board tells 13 5u l 14 somebody to be decided. Do I have any changes in the vote? E 15 I vote for the staff to d'o the telling. f 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The board. as { t[ 17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would say the NRC staff \\ I 18 should inform the Executive Director. If the board feels the = 19 system 'is not working and changes are not forthcoming to its 20 satisfaction, it needs to inform the Commission. 21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I would agree with that O 22, sg11t formu1etion, that 1s, in the norme1 case the staff shou 1d 23 f inform EDO. I would say in extraordinary cases, the board 24f should inform'the Commission. 25 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Along the lines where significant l \\ L t _.Jvd6TEFrMirdlFf5FJ6YrSMYduaaMfEVVNLXyra
16 1 delays may occur. O ^~ COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I do Itot know what the"staddard i ~~ 2 O. _. y is, for extraordinary cases, where the rtormal process does.not 4 seem to be working. = 5 In the run of the mill case in which the staff-H ~ { 6 requests an extension, it is presumed t,he staff-will be -letting 7 the EDO know through its own internal workings and it is only a g 8 in situations where the board really feels something out of the d ci 9 ordinary is going on. Obviously that is not very fine 10 guidance, it is the kind of standard the board members will 3 l 11 know when they see it. U y 12 MR. COTTER: It does ask them to make a distinction between ordinary delsys and extraor[dinary delays. 13 l 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: In the first instance, we j g 15 l l f 16-apply Bill's principle. If the board is suf ficiently unhappy, w 17 it can inform the Commission. 5 18 MR. COTTER: That is a discretionary judgment when F." 19 the board thinks the delay is going beyond what one would l X 20 normally expect in a hearing proceeding. 21, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Or an explanation that is h 22 sat is f actory. 23 i MR. DIRCKS: We are not going to swallow it the way /n V 24 l it is worded here. We are not going to sit on something. We 25 will inform the Commission that we have a problem with i L
17 i resource allocation or -- Z-O '2 " COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The b.oard notification 1s:~ 3 - something which comes if somehow that process ~ has-not work.ed'. ^ - O 4 It is assumed it tou'ld work. ~~ 5 COMM'ISSIONER AHEARNE: I again disagree. The board g4 -sees one proceeding. EDO sees all across the-staff area.- EDO 7 has a broader' prospective than the board does. X 7 l 8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Ws ar.e in charge of two~ dd 9 , pyramids. There is a bureaucratic Ipyramid in the best sense 10 of the word and an adjudicatory pyramid. They are competing 3 g 11 inte re st s. We have to decide or Joe has to decide. ~ O d 12 MR. ROSENTHAL: If you go to the Commission, if it z 13 is necessary in a critical sense, ir you take the Seabrook a . g. ].4 - proceeding where. staff informed the appeal board on the 2 15 sesmic remand it would take four months to get its evidence in 5 f 16 "Scause it had 'a resource problem, I do not-think there would i l f 17 have been anything wrong there if an appeal b'oard had been U E 18 concerned about whether the Commission expected it to complete I I ch 19 that remand expeditiously, coming to the Commission, not being R 20 critical of the staff but saying, we have this proceeding before 21 us as you are aware and this is the situation that confronts us, () 22 the staff cannot get the testimony in for "x" number of months 23 and it has a resource problem. .m () 24 ; That is not an appeal board trying to judge an overall 25 situation which it obviously cannot. Th'en the Commission, not i f
18 y the-EDO because the EDO was not the one who' remanded-that' case E 2 ,t the appeal board, and it is not the,EDO the appeal-board : -rep rts to but it is the Commission. Then the -Commission - 3 4 decides whether it wants to take some action, reallocation of 5 resources to speed that up, to tell.the: board that -the staff l-6 has to commit its resources in the short term elsewhere and we want the appeal board to know we$are-accepting that situation. 7 ] 8 That is what I have in mind when I suggest the 9 appeal boards or licensing' boards should deal with the 2 h 10 Commiission and not the EDO. z E COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: My; belief is that kind of a 4 jj D d 12 problem ought to be brought to the EDO because that is staff z hh allocation of resources issue. 13 5 l COMtISSIONER GILINSKY: Presumably it is. Howard l 14 15 is going to tell. Bill. MR. SHAPAR: We tell Bill when the staff is delinquent ? 16 D al g
- 7 and when the boards are delinquent, even handedly.
MR. DIRCKS: Once it is raised, I could do something 18 about it. One way or another, if it comes directly to you, 19, R 20 you are going to come back to me -- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The idea is it is raised first 21 C 22, with Howard. l 23 i MR. DIRCKS: Harold will get one viewpoint and I guess ) 24j if Al raises another viewpoint and maybe Harold did not respond 25 ' fast enough, maybe I can do something with it. Maybe Harold is t
19 1 not aware of another aspect. x 2 All I am saying is you ought ;to be able to resolve. it - ~3 before-it gets up here. One way or ano,ther if it gets up here, 4 you are going to ask me to go back and,look at it and.I.have _. = 5 'to come back to you again. All I am saying-is give the system 5l 6 some time to work. 7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I; assume it is going to happen. N l 8 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That is what I thought I was d d 9 suggesting with the extraordinary circumstances. Do you take z' h 10 issue with that? 3 l 11 MR. DIRCKS: No. u 12 CQIMISSIONER AHEARNE:- It is the : point staff.will.not b$ 13 make deadlines because of limited resources. The issue is when l 14 a board feels it is really a serious problem, a serious delay of 2 15 some kind,. 'who do they tell that to. One of the issues in the 16 end getting Bill into a box is he is going to have to start 6 17 asking the boards to tell him. He has these five notices 5 18 and ask the boards which ones are really serious. z 19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: There may be a significant 20 difference in point of view between the board and the staff. 21 i Bill may think you do not need to do any more than x, y, z or l C 22 ; whatever. I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: He cught to be able to find 23 l 24 that out without first going up to us and coming back down. ) 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: He is going to find out because ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYM
I i 20 1 Harold is going to tell him. - m O 2 MR. DIRCKS: What are you goihg to do when you get it? 3 Are you. going to call me up and say, do2something about it? --4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are you suggesting 'de should ~ 5 not hear from Tony and Al? l 6 MR. DIRCKS:.The way this is working, I am going to ~ t 7 say, we have a problem in delay, he e a're the implications, X l 8 here is where the resource constraints are. I-cannot do d d 9 anything about 'it. I am going to have to inform you anyway I 10 and you are going to say, forget about that priority, do this g l 11 priority. 'At least you are going to have the facts before you. U { 12 What you are saying is you are going to get one case O55 13 that is a delay and you are going to have to come right back a l 14 down to. me and say, give me the facts of the case. g 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: We will certainly come back to a d 16 you. d ti 17 MR. DIRCKS: It is better to come back to me after E 18 you get the case laid out before you come up with a complaint. ~ E 19 MR. COTTER: The thing I am concerned about is l 20 involving in the proceeding the ultimate review body in the 21 agency. I think that can run the risk however remote cf putting ' O 22 Commiee1onere in the poste1on by accion they take in respense 23 to a report from the licensing board, put them in the position l~R ~~24~l of possibly being charged with having prejudged some aspect ~ v 25 of the operation or the hearing. I i R
21 j THe second consideration is you do now haveTa+ fairly O 2 extensive monitoring system through the-General Counsel's ' Office. ~ .3 It might be more appropriate to look for some report of delay -- O 4 I may be stirring something up that I should not -- ~- = 5 MR. BICKWIT: We could use another option. i j 6 (LAUGHTER.) g 3 7 MR. COTTER: A report of delay through that source X l 8 so that you are not injecting yourself prematurely into the c3 .d 9 function of the hearing and review and the final decision. z h 10 ' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's back up. Let's take up your z,,j 11 two part proposition. You would leave the paragraph as it is c5 12 stands. You would add a sentence or two and I do not know z 13 quite how to frame it but along.i he'. lines where the board t E E 14 perceives a staff delay -- u 2 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY,: Not getting resolved. D: 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Extensive. Do you want to leave w it optional or compulsory? May wish to inform the Commission. 17 j 5g 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That is a current practice. W/O 5h CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Simply the board will inform. 19 l COMMISSIONER GILINSi.2: Have Peter write it. 20j 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE. Peter? O 22 : COMMISSIONER SRADEORD: Have victor write 10. l 23 ' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: You are for the proposition as long ! h; 24 l as you do not have to write it. John? l { l 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It is the current practice. l
22 -1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Didanyoneinstruct:the{bodrdi.' 2 not to comm'unicate with us about delayd 3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: They do. The issue was to give' O 4 the board some mechanism of getting to -the guy who is responsible 5 for staff resources that there is ag roblem in a proceeding.- p l 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: John wants the board to talk to the g R 7 EDO. You want the board to talk to; the Commission but yotl are - 2 ~ j 8 willing to have this two part proposition. d d 9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are they precluded from i h 10 talking to the ED0? 3 j 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't want them to talk to D y 12 anybody' hb 13 (LAUGHTER.) 5m l 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Strike that. n 2 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Would it help, Bill, if the 5 f 16 board goes to you directly? as g 17 MR. DIRCKS: I think it wottld because it would at 5 18 least flag the issue. I am not getting everything. E 19 I MR. SHAPAR: I just tell Bill what he needs to know. R 20 MR. DIRCKS: It gives us a chance to resolve it at 21 a level where a solution can be worked out fairly readily. If O 22, we cannot work out a so1ution and if the case te going to de i 23 delayed, I am going to come up to you anyway and say we have a 0 24; proe1em, the eoere says this, here are the resource groete=s 25l Ind we have reached an impasse. +
23 1- 'You can be sure that if I don.'t work out a solutions" O the _ board is. not going to he' itate in o'oming to the Commission: - 2-s 3 and. telling you the EDO just will not work with them,:they are E .O .4 being uncooperative or something, I will not give the resodrces e 5 to the case. 3 l 6 One way or another you are going to find it out. 7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: fou a~re saying it helps X l 8 if the board will go to you. e, w 9 MR. DIRCKS: I think so. ; i h 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Lbt's put it in. N g 11 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If you stick with your original ~ ~ U y 12 proposal -- 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Which was based on a l 14 _ isunderstanding of what "it" refers to. m E I l 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If you return to yo'ur original u j 16 proposal, Peter was inclined to go with it. e 6 17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: When I thought a little more E $i 18 about it, I came down much more on the side of what came M = 19 be the two sentence formulation, that is in the ordinary course 1 20 l of events, the staff should go to the EDO and in the l 21 extraordinary situation, the board should come to us. That would h 22 be my preference. I can live with this. 1 23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It seems to me the conceptually b 24 c'. ear approach but apparent.11 Howard is not telling Bill. 25, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What is really behind all this? L Immrrvvw2 swa---- -------
24 -1 . Are there a lot of situations which at the moment -the = staff O ~ -.2 is perceived to be delaying proceedings-and-the EDO does not-3 know about it?, } -O -4 MR. DIRCKS: I do not think that is'the case'! What .-5 happens is there are a lot of things goiing on that I think-b ~ l 6 could be worked out at the right level.- If it is not worked ~ g 6, 7 out, it comes to me, if it is serious enough. A lot of people o 8 will claim delay or a lot of people-claim resource. problems 4 8 9 but until you really see the issue ;1 aid out before you, you ,z h 10 can't say let's come'down one side,or the other. Many times 3 m ~ 11 these things are just developed where the delay disappears. g 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think the reason the language 13 of this kind and on this point has. moved in and out of these u I l 14 drafts is the feeling on the part of at least some members - $i 15 of the boards that the staff is a major party to these f 16, proceedings and if the staff is not ready to go forward, it is d 17 very hard to go forward. 18 I think it was the feeling that if you are going to e 19 talk to the various aspects of trying to move these proceedings 20 to ignore that point, it was not very sensible. I do not know 21 that the language provided here, that staff inform the EDO h 22 or the board inform the EDO or somebody informs tne Commisnion 23 or any combination thereof -- that there is anything we are 3 yy 24 l going to say that is going to solve a fundamental resource 25 problem. 4 L
4 25 If you have two sizemologists~ and three hearings ~. .;i- . 2 .that need a sizemologist at the same tfme, one-is-going tordo. s: O ~ 3 without. 4 'Since the general nature of this document is.to-try- =- 5 .to-encourage forward motion -- we are riot proclaiming we' are. l 6 solving problems. i 7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I tho'ught it might be helpful: g l 8 to get' a feel for something more spfecific. -I' prefer the two ~ d d 9 tier. My second purpose would be the original language with ,2 h 10 the "it" referring to staff, I can swallow having the board do 2 z ~ iiig 11 it. That does seem to me to create a reporting pattern we have U y 12 not had. O 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That is what concerned me, l 14 that there is some suggestion there is some infringement on !i!l 15 the role of the reporting relationship in terms of the board u l d 16 and the Commission.- As long as it is understood that is not ad ti 17 the case. U 18 MR. COTTER: I am concerned with the adjudicator k I 19, being directed to go outside of the adjudicatory process to R 20 put pressure on one of the parties. Would it be acceptable 21 if the exchange were between perhaps myself as to the extent h 22 I have managerial responsibilities and the ED0? 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The board ends up notifying OD 24 you and yotr go to the ED0? ~ 25 MR. ROSENTHAL: I maxe my monthly status report to 1 m
26 - O 1- + 'the. Commission in which any kind of slippage -is necessarily-2 iraported. When I reported last fall od Seabrook; -I called tio 3 - the Commission's attention that the sch'edulechad been' set up-O 4 for testimony and the reasons for it. '+- 4 5 CHAIRMAN ~HENDRIE: Do'you.want to try to make..it ~ h0 explicit? The chairmen of the panels 'willitell EDO and 'if ~ R. 2 7 there are significant delays, he wi11 explain in a memo that ~ 2 l 8 goes to all hands and so on. i d ci 9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: If th'at happens, I guess I z h 10 woul'd like to see it in the report from the panel.that comes E h 11 out to us. 13 y 12 MR. COTTER: I think that is-reasonable. O5 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Who isl prepared to redraft along 5a l 14 this line? Hi, Tony' 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Just say the chairmen of d 16 the boards -- d 17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I think in the course of 18 this conversation I have supported every possible answer. k 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think you have. I think'I have-20, opposed every possible answer. 21 I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes, and I think you are 22 l still doing it. 23 ! CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: My only interest is to see where 24 something reasonable can come down. Let's ask Tony to do a 25 real quick redraft. I _ -___________ ___ fVL M M /PM t\\Nm ntNVP
27 1 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Why not just say the. chairmen I~ O' 2 of the boards should inform? 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Should inform the Executive;~ - 4 Director and the rest of it follows. Do yottwant to add = 5 anything further? H l 6' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It seems fine. R 2, 7 CHA,IRMAN HENDRIE: We und~erstand the chairmen of X l 8 the panels will take note of those kirids of circumstances d ci 9 in a monthly summary. I was going to say you could put that i h 10 in. 3 j 11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: No, as long as it is 3 y 12 understood. ~ O j is COMMISSIONER oItINSE:: They do noe fee 1 inhietted l 14 b y in fo rmin g. u s. _. _ _ _ _.._. _ _ _ 2 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: They have not in the past. d 16 CHAIRMAN l{ENDRIE: Should it read " chairmen"? ti vi i 17 MR. ROSEITI'HAL: Yes. 18 CHAIRMAN Hf.NDRIE: Of the adjudicatory panels. I am = C 19 glad we got rid of that because that was sort of a trivial R 20 point! 21 The Commis:; ion has now designed its bicycle shed. {, 22 The next item, time. 23, COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That is one way of saying you h 24 disagreed with the result. 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Under " Time," Vic has a short m
28 -: 1-insert. I would like to offer for your~ consideration the. O-2- proposition that this is where we-might"want:to throw a- -3 prototypical schedule or a suitable ver~ ion of it in here. : s O ~ COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I hel<i up on that. 'I d'id have- -4 ~ = 5. a version of your paragraph which Ig did not circulate because Ek6 it is part of the package we put out. ~ G 7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I do npt h' ave at hand at the 3 l 8. moment the schedule I would proposeito go with this. We are. d m; 9 going to have to decide when we. consider the Part 2 business 2 h 10 and continue to consider. this whether we want to consider Z l 11 offering a prototype schedule at either place, and if so, at is I 12 which place and if so, what we do with the schedule. O. 2! 13 My thought here was I am inclined to think it fits 14 better in the policy statement. I would say the schedule that 15 goes with this language. remains to be discussed. I would not a f 16 propose to look at a schedule now but just the idea of hanging e 6 17 it in here and using the kind of language proposed here to E 18 make clear it is not a hard and fast sort of requirement. E 19 MR. BICKWIT: Is your proposal to go forward with 20 language on this order prior to determining what the schedule is? 21 Later on, attac51 a schedule? Is it your purpose to first l I l V 22, decide what the schedule is and then put it in the policy l 23 ' statement? [- 24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think determine what the 25 schedule is and then put it in. I L s' JyyyP
29 O. ~1 MR. BICKWIT: I am inclined to think as you do that : 2 - it would be better if it were here, the cost associated with i3 3 that is to await the determination of the schedule before 'you. 4 send out this policy statement. = 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We are cgoing.to turn fairly soon ] 6l to Part 2 rule changes that have besn published. It has been 7 my feeling that we would work our way through those and see 3 l 8 where the Commission wants to go and that it would not take 42 9 all that much arguing end time and we would see what we are i h 10 really to adopt out of the Part 2 changes, what effect that 3 l k 11 had on the prototype schedule and discuss the prototype schedule D I 12 one more time. O5 13 MR. BICKWIT: It is a delay of putting this statement g = l 14 out by at least a week and perhaps longer. 2 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: In the absence of having O ~ d 16 gone through the discussion on the Part 2 items, I described adl 17 this as a standard schedule which is now the basis for 18 allocating staff effort, which I believe it is, rather than E 19 saying it is the right schedule. 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Your language is fine. 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would be in agreement to O 22 ; gutting e stetement in. I think I grefer v1c.s eescription 23 l of the way of allocating staff resources. ) Q, 24 l In favor of putting it in, unless it turns out it 25, begins to look like it is going to be many weeks before we can i
30 1 get'it out. 2 CHAIRMAN H5NDRIE: In that case, I would agree.~~ T ~ G 3-We are getting some copies of}Vic's language. - 4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Peter,.could you explain.~againT- = 5 what bothered you about at least three. working-days, -why you il 6 wanted to change it'to 12? g g 7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: The trest I can do is'tell you X l 8 what would bother me about,it at the moment. It was in the d d 9 original draft.
- i h
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The original draft was request E I 11 for extension of time should generally be in writing. 6 y 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORDi~ I made a number of changes O:- 5:f 13 where it seemed to me that document. simply was too specific in l 14 terms of taking items that really should in each case be 2 15 resolved by the board and resolving them ourselves. It seemed U f 16 to me not only in that case but a number of the other changes
- d E
, to be giving-the board a generalized guidance g 17 I made, we ought li 18 and let them decide the specific number of days or specific 5 19 other techniques depending on the change I was making that R 20 ought to be employed. 21 I cannot imagine this formulation would work out to h 22 be less than three days, except in some situation where a last 23 i minute emergency arose and in msny cases it would tend to be 24I more than'three~ days. ~ ~ ~ - - - - ' l 25, MR. COTTER: I think it sounds like a good deal more l i svt
31 1 than three days. ~ ~ G 2 COMMISSIONER AHE'RNE: Whenever we have a situation ~' A . 3 where the words are very general, then it is very' easy to: 4 c_laim an exemption. I did not know whether t. hat was-in there e 5 because the legal group felt it wasga time that was needed,- E I 6l an explicit requirement. R ~ R 7 MR. COTTER: I think I wah the originator of the -t'hree ~ X l 8 days. ) d
- i 9
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It wais in your original draft. Y 10 MR. COTTER: Ky thought was I.do not think the rules 3 ul 11 specify any time limits like that ahd it established a y 12 meaningful timeframe in a place where there is none and where C)5 g 13 there is a general practice of waiting until the absolute last a i l 14 minute. I did not see it as too restrictive because the 2 15' statement in which 'it is contained is precatory and reserves U j 16 to the board the judgmental element. d 6 17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I.do not mind you or the 18 boards themselves deciding that needs at least three days. = 19 MR. COTTER: My thought was the three days was a 20 message to the parties. 21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I have no difficulty with ,- m () 22 you or the individual boards advising the parties that is what i 23 1 teans. You all are the ones conducting the proceedings and k/ 24 c.a t us. It see:aed to me to be a sounder principle to give you 25 the general thrust of what we expect and let you fill in the r a
\\ 32 1 numbers. 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Except-in this case a~chairmani- - 3 'of the licensing board panel has proposed 'a ' statement-to that 4 effect. I would conclude that is becaqse he: thought.it would e 5 be of some help. 3 6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It la sound management psinciples, setting the general polh.cy.-and letting.the people 7 3 l 8 who have to carry them out give the3 spe,cific contents. dd 9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Th'ere is another part that af h 10 says it is an advantage to the people carrying it out to have Z E 11 something more specific and good ma~nagement says to give them 0 y 12 something more specific. Oji3 rou have somethins in the appeal board regulations l 14 that says one day? 2 15 MR. ROSENTHAL: Yes. We require motions for d f 16 extensions to be filed no later than the day before or the w date upon which the particular paper is due. { 17 l b 18-CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I do not mind going back to three l = 19 days. l b 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I was hoping this conversation l 21 would just float away. 22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That is in the appeal 23 boards' rules of practice? 24 MR. ROSENTHAL: In the appendix to Part 2 or somewhere. C 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Is it something we can change . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYo INCo.
33 1 -in a policy statement? Is it something'that is presently part - 2 of the regulations? 3 MR. SHAPAR: It is in Appendix A to Part 2, I believe, 4 which_is called a statement of policy and procedure.._1.think e 5 Alan has handed down a ruling in which he has-not accepted the f l 6 full validity of that document as a', regulation. 2 A 7 MR. BICKWIT: I do not see any problem from a legal - X ] 8 standpoint in going either way. dd 9 (LAUGHTER.) i i h 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Three.or well. Peter is going to El 11 vote for "well." If you vote weekly for "well" and I vote U p 12 weekly for "three" and those two are strong for "well" and (): 13 strong for "three," we are in a very neat symmetrical here. a l 14 Let's leave it "well", John. U 2 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You may leave it "well." U f 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Looking at ~B; nobody seemed to d 6 17 have any comments. C, nothing. For D, Vic wanted to put 18 another "so that" in there. It does not seem to fit. Do you m N 19 want to take it out? g M 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Take it out. I 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Further in D where the i 3 22 Commission "again endorses" rather than "re-endorses." A/ l 23 ! F, Vic wants to take out a sentence starting ..) 24 with "In other words..." 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That was already taken out. i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I I 34 l 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is in 202B. =_ O~~-2 ~ COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It wap,just repetitive.J -3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: A2Pe there any problems with:it? O 4 Do you feel sad over its loss?- Strike it. _ e 5-Next_ you wanted to strike "irt order to' prevent - 5$'6 detriment to the public interest or exp.ense.. " Let's strike g ~ R 7 it, there may be other reasons. X l 8 G, H, I. Where did we end up on discussions on d d 9 the powers of the-boards? i h 10 MR. BICKWIT: You had various expressions of opinions. al 11 John did not want to express his until he received an U y 12 evaluation of the hearing process from the licensing boards. O j is COMMISSIONEa AHEARNE: Tony 1e app 171ng en l 14 interesting approach in this one. 2 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What is it you are waiting for? U f 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Tony had agreed some time ago w 6 17 to give me his view of an equivalent kind of paper that Alan E !ii 18 did, addressing sua sponte and role of the boards. I was 5 19 waiting until I got that. R 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Do you have it? 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: No, It was promised to me by [] 22 the end of this week. 23 ; MR. COTTER: Yes. [' 24 j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I j ust thought I should put 25 that en the record. 1 I i
35 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I am going to pass over any.:: ~ 2' statement about sua sponte. Vic 's K', f,iling-of -proposed -..- ~ 3 ' findings of fact, no change. Initial d.ecisions, no change. 4 I declare we have agreement on a great part _of:this. ~ ~= 5 There are two places we need to sort out, both are under l 6 specific guidance, Section A, which:at.the moment looks as .n k 7 though -- X l 8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I prefer Vic's version. dd 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It looks like Vic's original i h 10 two sentences with his second thing'that starts "" standard El 11 schedule" stuck in the middle. 'O y~12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Or at the end. () ~ 13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The question mark on the left l 14 is important' I thought if we were going to attach a schedule, 2 15 we should describe it. U f 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: John likes your description. I e 6 17 would vote to attach. ? E 18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I have no objection to,the = 19 principle of attaching a schedule assuming we can agree on it. g M 20 I must say I preferred your language. 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: There are two differences. 22 There is the first sentence which describes what the schedule 23 1s. I think I prefer mine there. On how you react to the i 24 l schedule, I am not sure I do not-prefer Joe's_also.. 25 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: The only difficulty I had ]
36 1 ~ with'the business about allocating staff effort is it does seem -O ~ to reinvolve the boards in the management side.of NRC operations. 2 3 What we are really interested in having:them have is our 4 notion of what a fair and reasonable schedule-is, if it is e 5 also the basis for allocating staff.effjort, fine..That.is-E I 6 as it should be. R R 7 That is something I would,put in a memo we send to Bill X l 8 and not a memo we send to the boards. d d 9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The reason I like Vic's z h 10 description is I have no problem agreeing with it. I think 2 l 11 it is a schedule which is the basis' for allocating NRC staff U y 12 e f fort. I think that is a factual description of it. 13 'I do~ seem to. get the ' impression ~ that you think that-l 14 ' this puts more pressure on the boards somehow. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It puts.them on the wrong 2 15 U f 16 track again. It is kind of like having them report to the EDO. e d 17 It is not that it has a pressure effect one way or the other. 5 18 MR. BICKWIT: I do not really see that but it does E 19 seem to me to be a back h'anded way of telling the board to k 20 stick to this kind of schedule if possible. 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I viewe'd it as a milder 22 statement of what the schedule was. 23, MR. BICKWIT: If you want to apply pressure to the 24 boards to conform to this where j ustified, it does strike me 25 the best way to do that is state that in a straightforward way i
37 1-rather than to indicate this is the schedule :for. staff - 0 2 allocation. ~ 3 COMMISSIO'NER BRADFORD: Maybe;that is involved in it,T- -4 too. Somehow we are saying to them, the train is ' running on = 5 this track and you should noo derail it.: because this is a E 2 j 6 convenient way to schedule staff resources. The point is the g 7 schedule we are laying out for them should be the.most X l 8 consistent with running a sensible pro'ceeding and then we d. ci 9 should be' allocating staff resources in accordance with that. 2 h 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: T'he reason I went to this z _l 11 is because we have not had discussion on Part 2. U y 12 MR. BICKWIT: Why not defer it? ~ O ! is. COMMISSIONER AaEARNz: Why not wait to see the l 14 schedule? 2 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right. We will settle III E l f 16 and A when we struggle with the schedule and we still have w { 17, to touch on III, J, the sua sponte matters but we have b 18 postponed that discussion ~until Jchn hears from Tony. = 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You will get copies. R 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I still owe you a Part IV 21 conclusion which Victor delegated to me in accordance with ] 22 j sound management principles after the last meeting which l 23! essentially recaptures whatever the flavor of my original j 24 i
- eginning can be salvaged and put at the end and I will send 25 that around today.
LK
i 38 1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right. O ~2 I have 35 minutes, where should I put it, on Part 2? l 3 MR. BICKWIT: I would put it on Part 2. ~- O ~ ~ 4 CHAIRMAN EE'NDRIE: Good, start. = 5 MR. BICKWIT: You have two ' papers before you, the 5 l 6 analysis of the comments on proposed fule included in 2 2 7 SECY-81-252 and a memo from the EDO[ relating. to - the discovery X l 8 aspects of the proposal. j d d 9 I do not think it would be productive to go through i h 10 all the arguments made in either the SECY paper or in the E00's z. r l 11 memo although I would leave that to the EDO and the Executive a y 12 Legal Directive. I simply want to point out what we have in (b)b the SECY paper is a series of joint _ recommendations on most 13 0= i l 14 of the reccamendations in the proposal but I think all would 2 15 agree the recommendations are on the least significant proposed E f 16 changes to the present rules. W 6 17 With respect to the most significant, i.e., the D 18 proposal involving discovery, what you have is a statement -- I 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: A punt! 20 MR. BICKWIT: I would not describe it as a punt. 21 That is really the reason I bring it up. You have a statement (i 22 of cost and benefits which is subscribed to by our office 23 ' and the adjudicatory boards, the licensing board and the chairmen 24 ; of the appeal boards, and the reason I do not regard that as / 25) being characterized in the way you characterized it is basically 4 JVL
I l 39 I what you have in the discovery proposal-is a weighing :in our- - o i 2 view of rather serious costs and rather; serious benefits and 3 with respect to the other proposed changes, the four-offices were O 4 -able to come up with technical fixes which we. regarded-as really = 5 costing very little and having some ben.efit. E b2A -l 6 The cost is one that at least three offices agree R The benefit is also substantial. In a case 2 7 - is substantial. K l 8 such as this, it struck me that theilawyers are not the ones d d 9 to. advise the Commission. We can tell you that the proceedings af h 10 will be $mpacted, the proceedings w-ill not be as thorough as ~ 3 l 11 they would be if you took the action proposed. U y 12 In essence, what you are weighing against a thorough 13 proceeding is the need to get various plant's on line at an n j 14 earlier stage. 2 15 I think it is fair to say that we have reached the Ys j 16 conclusion that prohibitin;g discovery against the staff will i ( 17 l get plants on line at an earlier stage. We disagree with the E 5 18 comments to the contrary. There are many comments to the E 19 contrary. We reject them in the majority of cases we can n 20 foresee. 21, What you are illy talking about is how much do l O 22 you want to get those p1 ente on 11ne. That to my view is not 23 a question that is appropriately addressed by the Commission b 24 l lawyers. 25 With respect to the staff position on that, I think it
40 1 is-appropriately addressed by the Commission staff..The. ..O 2 --Commission staff has ~ addressed it: and has come. out strongly in ' 3 one direction. () 4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It seems to me the way Part _2 ~_ = 5 ' proposition is shaped is there is a;sub.stantial question of 5l 6 mandatory discovery from the staff.- Leave it unchanged;.take K ~ 2. 7 it out or adjust it. There are a batch of other Part 2 rule _ M l 8 changes for which we have recommendations of the reviewing d d 9 ' group that on balance seem to me reasonable although I am _. 10 under no illusion they are going. to mike any radical difference E ~ 5 11 in at least the time aspect of these proceedings. b y 12 Having gotten comments and having had the reviewing kIb 13 group consider the comments and think about the whole process, g - 14 I am inclined to take their recomme.ndations for these minor. 2 15 adj ustment s. 5 i 16 Taere is a question of what we do about the schedule. 3d 6 17 We would like to deal with that also because of the policy 18 statement where I still would prefer to put it. = 'Y 19 What about the section about alternative means to R 20 expedite the process? People seem to come back and suggest 21 there were other things we were looking at or should be () 22 looking at that were more significant than most of these Part 2 i I 23 items. -m i k./ 24 I do not seem to find any reccmmendation from the 25, reviewing group under IV of your paper. Iou simply point out l l l l
41 -1 - some of the comments ran in this direction. Is that the way - b 2 I read it? 3 MR. BICKWIT: That is true. Implicit in my not I: ~ ~ ~ ~~ 4 making a recommendation is the notion that I think the 5 Commission in on the right tracks already. H l 6 CHAIRNMN HENDRIE: It looks to.me as though I-can R R 7 come very rapidly to the issues before us in Part 2. For X ~ l 8{ myself, I would support curtailing mandatory discovery against 1, d d 9 the staff. I would support the recommendations of the group i h 10 as set forward in this paper for changes to Part 2 and depending E j 11 upon how we all vote on those things, then we sit down with D j 12 counsel and work through that schedule. () 13 My own feeling is the chances are after the 14 Commissioners have read the paper and considered the comments 2 15 would have a fairly good idea where they would come out. It does U not seem to me to be something which is going to require hours y 16 l d b' 17 of meetings and discussion amongst us. E 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I have a few questions. E g 19 j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Please ask your questions. If you M i 20 l would like to indicate how you come down on these things, we I 21 l would like that also. l 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: On the bottom of page seven, (]) 23 ' you have under the present rules 103 days provided for any (-) 24$ contested discovery required after issuance of the 3SER. 25
- Is the key there to contested -- wnere do you get i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. I
42 1 103 days? 2 MR. BICKWIT: That assumes there are' motions'.to- ~ ~~ ~ 3 compel discovery which is not undertaken under the voluntary -4 discovery concept. It assumes also that there~are no cress e 5 interrogatories which are off the critical path and it assumes $l 6 that the motions to compel are gran'tedc g 2 7 With those assumptions, a'nd the. assumption of the X l 8 period of time specified in the rules that is taken advantage dd 9 of by every party. i h 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Under the present rules, as El 11 much as 103 days can be used? D y 12 MR. BICKWIT: I think adtually more could be used if (I!g 13 cross interrogatories take you beyond the critical path. If a 14 i any of these assumptions are not correct, 103 is th^ wrong 2 15 number. E 16 MR. SHAPAR: That is for one round of dw 6 17 interrogatories and the complete schedule of all the internadiate u Uh 18 points as set out in the memorandum to the Secretary dated = 19 April 7 R 20 MR. BICKWIT: If the motion to compel under that 21 schedule is not granted, right then and there that chops two . "'N (/ 22 weeks off the 103 days. I guess it should also be pointed out 23 in the. proposed schedule, you had 25 days assumed for discovery l' 24 post-SSER so that the appropriate saving should be the number 25 that you come up with when you subtract 25 from whatever number i
43 1 of days you settle on under this analysis. 'O 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Are you saying the 25'dajs 3 is the savings you.would see from this?: 4 MR. BICKWIT: No. I am saying let's assume 103 -days 5 +1s what you can expect, that those assumptions are reasonable j 6 and 103 days is what you could expect. - If you leave the rules R 2 7 as-they are, you have to reco$nize the difference between 3 g 8 leaving the rules as they are and what was contemplated in d d 9 the original schedule is 103 minus 25 't h 10 MR. SHAPAR: Isn't discovery usually concluded E Ul 11 against the other parties by the time the SSER is issued? y 12 MR. BICKWIT: I would say no. It need not be because ()gb 13 you may have a situation 'especially-in the near term where the u l 14 applicant's fix with respect to TMI is really known about only 2 15 about 30 days before the SSER is issued. You may have some U f 16 discovery going on against the applicant post-SSER. I think w( 17 that is a very possible situation. 5 E 18 The point I was making is under our schedule, we E { 19 had assumed that 25 days would elapse for discovery of some n 20 sort and therefore, the difference between this assumption and 21 that is 103 minus 25 ~ ,(i) 22 I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That is a potential savings, 23 not automatic in every case. T J 24 ; . MR. SICKWIT: Certainly not. Those assumptions are 25 going to vary from case to case. i a 1 Ernac/SM nr
I' f l 44 T COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: On page ten you talk abotit ~: I- ~ ~- t .~ 2 things that would be requh. red, would ne,ed to be provided, - 3 would be required, would have to be extended. O; Under " Costs" you say if we go to removal of the V 4 = 5 staff from discovery that. a substantial expansion of the local 5 5 l 6 public document room program would be required and at a R R 7 minimum, NRC would have to provide to the local public document l 8 rooms and additional travel money would: be required and staff d d 9 resources would have to be expended:. mi ~ so.strongly. h 10 I am kind of puzzled by why you say that 2,; j 11 MR. BICKWIT: It is all hinged to the first sentence 3 y 12 of the not full paragraph on page nine which is the Commission h 13 must also recognize that a major premise of the proposal is l 14 staff will make available pertinent documents on a voluntary i 2 15 basis. 5 i g 16 Obviously if you want to drop that premise and live ai g 17 j with the current state of the LPDRs, that is within the Y 18 Commission's authority. = 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Making voluntary distribution k l 20 of the documents does not necessarily automatically follow your need of expansion and the LPDRs are in pretty sad shape 21li 22 in many cases right now, the availability of documents ] 23 and catalogins of documents. t 24 ; They are poor now so adding something else to them a 25 does not automatically mean because of this' additional problem _ _ ALDERSON _ REPORTING COMP ANYg INC.
45 1: - that they now have to get healthy. They should have been - r 2 healthy anyway. 3 ~~ MR. BICKWITE We presently have a poor set of LPDRs a 4 plus discovery against the staff. We are assuming.that if..the
- L.
~5 Commission wants to eliminate discovery.against.the staff, that-5l 6 it will-want to beef up the LPDR system. 7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: We have not in the past and' N j 8 it does not automatically follow that if we do this we would dd 9 want to. 2 h 10 MR. BICKWIT: It does noti automatically follow, ' that Z 5 5 11 is right. ri 12 COMMISSILNER AHEARNE: Your words seem to imply it 3 h$ 13 would have to. S l 14 MR. BICKWIT: Our words were not meant to imply the $i 2 15 Commission had no choice but to beef up the LPDRs. 5 16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It might have been better if
- w g
17 they had. 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: On the issues with respect to m 5 elimination of discovery, in your development of that concept 19 c R 20lj originally, did you ever address perhaps not going quite that l 21 far and say limiting interrogatories against the staff? l 22 MR. BICKWIT: That is one of the alternatives. 23 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I gather that is something I sone Federal courts use. 24,, ) 25 MR. BICKWIT: In our initial discussions, we considered L
46 - that. That is certainly one of the options-before the. O - Commission. I think in fact the differ.ences between limiting 3 interrogatories or e'liminating interrogatories -and elimina' ting. 4 discovery are not all that great. 5 COMMISSIONER' AHEARNE: I_said limiting. El 6 MR'. BICKWIT: What did ydu have in mind? ~ ~. R 7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You have that as an option. X l 8 My understanding was in some Federal courts, they-do limit the d 9 interrogatories to some number, sap five, and. going beyond that 2 h 10 requires permission from the court.; j 11 MR. BICKWIT: That is certainly an option. D y 12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: On the question on the licensing ()5 ~ 13 boards rule on written letters orally, do you see that as being u l 14 a major change? 2 15 MR. BICKWIT: No.. E ~ f 16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: As you say, to a large extent w( 17 it codifies this practice that is existing. 5 I 5 18 The prohibition on motions to reconsider pre-hearing = 5 19 orders, you have ended up with proposing a modification. 20 MR. BICKWIT: Yes. 21, COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That modification I gather () 22 the licensing board has no problem with? i 23 ' MR. BICKWIT: These are jointly proposed. k) 24 ; COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: As I recall there was some 25 concern on part of some of the members of the licensing board i 1 3 i
47 y as to an absolute restriction. u-- - k)~ ~ '2 Given this change, do you expect -t' hat to be 3 significant? kk 4 MR. BICKWIT: A major time saver? No. = 5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: You concluded you would not ~ H 6 want to go to the licensing board chairman ruling on these Rg 7 items. X To file a reply, et ceter[a, my problem is it g 8 dd 9 appeared to be a small savings but 11t did have-the appearance z h 10 of unfairness. Z l 11 MR. BICKWIT: There was s'ome unfairness associated U d 12 with our recommendation? z () COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The way the restriction you 13 a l 14 have, if you want to cut time off, why don't you cut time off 2 15 the board, writing time? w U D.- 16 MR. BICKWIT: .That was a subject that we dealt with d i 17 when we put together the proposed schedule. I think the general Y 18 conclusion of our group was writing a decision in less than = 19 two months would be burdensome on the process. The licensing R 20 board originally proposed three months. We hammered them down 21 to two. () 22, We did not propose a rule change to accomplish what 23 was the general conclusion of the group which was 60 days I ( [ 24 j was a reasonable period of time. I 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: The last one on the summary b PEVvY;bveZ__Nw2_ _ ___ _ _ _____ _ __ ___ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _
I 48 - 1 judgment no later than 45 days, how would you expect the. board : 2-to apply this unless it would unduly dtvert-the other parties' 3 resources?: Give me an example. O 4 MR. BICKWIT: If it is' obvious that one party is - 5 having resource problems, without any particular reason, the - = f l 6 proponent of summary disposition offers that motion.within R R 7 five days of the hearing, I would regard that as an undue X j 8' invasion of,the other party's resources. If there was some dd 9 particular reason why it could not le offered at an earlier i h 10 stage, I would be inclined to say 1-t is not unduly. E l 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Af the top of page 21, you have D in lieu of the board's deciding on an ad hoc basis how much time (5) f 12 5g 13 for responses 'should be provided, a ten day response period u l 14 should be provided. U 2 15 Does this establish a right to a second response? U g 16 My understanding was at the present time it was up to the board. d 17 MR. BICKWIT: Our intent was not to change existing = 5 18 rights but where a right existed to make ten days the period 1 = l C i 19 of time. l 20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: My understanding was there l l 21 was no right to that second response, it was up to the board. () 22 MR. lICKWIT: I think that is right. My response 23 was we did not intend to create a right where none exists.
- )
ks 24 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE: If the board so chooses, then l 25 the ten days. t I l a
I i } I 49 1 MR. BICKWIT: Yes. () 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would agre.e with Joe 3 on number six where 'flexibilities would2 be useful. On. num' be r b 4 five, I would be opposed. 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Six was yes and five was no. ~~ g nl 6 COMMISSIONER 'AHE ARNE: Yes. Yes or no with respect R 8 7 to the recommendations. On four, yes, with respect to the X l 8 recommendations, which is a "no" with respect to the proposal. d d 9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I understand. i h 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: On-three, yes to the 3=q 11 recommendation. On two, yes to the; recommendation. On one, D y 12 I will hold until I hear comments from my colleagues. k) 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Vic? I u l 14 MR. BICKWIT: On five, are you saying you war.t to g 15 leave the existing situation or you want to go back to the L1 g 16 proposed rule? d 6 17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would lea've the existing 5 t 18 situation at the moment. I could not persuade myself this m N 19 would really help. 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: On the elimination of the staf', I would not approve. f 21 compulsory discovery against l () 22 l I would take a proposal made in a comment from Westinghouse i 2S which would at least not make it mandatory for the staff to () 24 j be a party. My feeling is it is not necessary for the staff 25, to be a party in every proceeding. t A LD E RSOfM R E POMiFHfMG COM P /NMt7J89L
50 1-COMMISSIONER AREARNE: Westinghouse went further. :: I: 2 They said not have the. staff be a party:at all. ~ 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, I: would not go that'~far. ?- ~ 4-CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: Could~ they mail in their safety c: = 5 report? 5l 6 ~ COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I~ can see you like that'- ^n 8 7 proposal. X _l 8 On two -- I attended partiof a hearing the other day d c; 9 and it seemed to me the applicant was perfectly capable of Z h 10 presenting his own case. It was not a licensing hearing. It Z z 11 really was not clear to me why the staff was there. It could D Y 12 be savings in other proceedings and the net effect could be (Ib 5 13 to free up a lot of' lawyers to work on the proceedings where u l 14 the y, are ne eded.- -~ - - - ~ ~ - -~ ----- El 15 On number two I would go with the recommendation. u 16 On three, I would go with the recommendation. On four, I would gi w { 17 not change the rule. I guess that is also going with the u l { 18 recommendation. Number five, I would not eliminate applicant's k l 19 right. Number six, I would allow a more flexible schedule. 20 Number seven, I guess we have not really dealt with that yet. I 21 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There was not a seven! 22 Five, you disagree with the recommendation? 23 MR. BICKWIT: You disagree with the proposed rule. I ( l 24 l You do not want to eliminate the right of reply. Do you want ( 25 to agree with the recommendation which is to allow five days ...w
r I 51 1 for the right of reply? M. '2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, that is fine. " - - ' ~ ~ 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Peter? ~ 2 4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I can.save time by saying'I -~ = 5 am basically in agreement with where Victor.came.out.on each $l 6 one. I am interested in having the' question of the. staff's g 7 rolt in the hearing discussed. I do not know I would be X ~ j 8 prepared ~ to endorse a major rearrangement without more work d d 9 than we have done on it to date. af h 10 I am not sure on five that: I would swallow the 3l 11 entire recommendation although I an' also not sure I grasped it. U y 12 j I do not have a problem with changing the time period. O5 ~ 13 Len, what do you mean by there is also no reason why g* i 14 parties other than the staff should have the opportunity to 15 review the applicant's proposed findings before filing their f 16 submissions? d ti 17 MR. BICKWIT: We mean whereas presently the standard E O 18 schedule is for the applicant 1:o file on day 20 and interve: tors = U 19 to file on day 30. We are F.dvised by the boards that the g 20 applicants really cannot be expected to file on day 20 so we suggest everybody but staff file on day 30. We say in 21 l 22 justification that there does not seem to be any inherent reason 23 ' why that is unfair to intervenors. 24 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: You go on with the 25 applicant's right to file a reply being preserved. I assume i 1. It
52 .1 !. if.the. applicant tried to file a reply, it originally flowed from _O -1 the fact that they had to get their fir:st filing in earlier-0 3-and in.effect the other parties were then given..their-chance 4 to file a reply because they already had access _to the-51 applicant's findings and that is why they were. only given one j 6 shot. E 2 7 MR. BICKWIT: I do not think'it
- lowed from.that.
I N l 8 think it flowed from the notion that the applicant has the d d 9 burden of proof and therefore should have a right to reply i h 10 to anything he has seen in the pre-[ file testimony. 3l 11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: f would think there would be U y 12 an element of both. If I were a board member, I would find ()5 13 findings that in some measures spoke to each other to be more a l 14 valuable than a set that were all filed simultaneously and 15 then only one party had a right to comment on what laid before E me. Whatever the logic, I think there is real benefit for y 16 a 6 17 l having findings that come in sequence and really join on the U N 18 issues rather than have that happen simply by chance with 5 E 19 everybody filing at once. l R 20 I would be inclined to preserve a structure in Ohich r l 21l there was some time differential. i i ,0 2'.,) 22 l MR. 31CKWIT: Fair enough. It is - - :onclusions of I 23 ' the boards that the series of filings cannot realistically be k-24 expected to start on day 20, but expected on day 30. 25 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: I would be talking about i l a
53 i 30 to 40. l 2 MR. BICKWIT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: On five, ' ypu woulck want. some - 1 0-3 ~ 4 different times? 5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Therei is another tinie savings - l 6 in there that I do not.think I object to but I'do have a' e f7 problem with eliminating the sequential-filing. x l 8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Peter, you said you agreed with 9 Vic on essentially all but Vic, I was not clear where you came 10 out on number one. E g ji COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would not approve the U { 12 proposal and I suggested an alternative which is not to make O5 it mandatory the staff de a party in each proceeding. i3 - 14 l . CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right. -B E 2 15 What we find amongst ourselves is we have tentative 5 D: 16 agreement on the rule changes as recommended in the counsel's ad g 17 paper, recommended by the review group on items two, three, 5 i 18 four and six. We will need more discussion on item five because 19 l I suspect if we juggle some of thase times, the majority R 20 position would develop, which would maintain some of the 21 things Peter and John have mentioned and also take note of h 22 ! the fact that the current times as laid down in Part 2 are i 23 not being made. I think we need discussion on that. mC 24 j On number one, to relieve the staff of-the requirement 25 to respond to discovery on a voluntary sort of basis, we have t i l I
~ i t 54 1 one to do that and two not to do that but discussion for-() I another proposition about the staff's rple in hearings. John l 3 will wait for further information. O-4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: It does not make much difference. = 5 CHAIRMdN HENDRIE: As a practical matter unless bl 6 Peter and Vic change their minds, if you agree with me, it g 7 is a 2-2 proposition. X l 8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would like to comment on d d 9 Vic's proposal. z ~ h 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What Ij propose to do with regard Z j 11 to Part 2 is thrash out number five:and.get-straight on the U d 12 ~ dates because I think we can have some agreement on that and z 13 we can have discussion on Westinghouse's proposal that the l 14 staff stay home. 2 15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You can see how the lines U f )e are forming. d s g 17 MR. BICKWIT: I do not think you need much discussion' 5 18 (LAUGHTER.) E 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I have some questions to ask R 20 you, Len. 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We need to '.arn to the schedule. ,) 22, I think a majority of us if we can agree on a standard 23 schedule will want to see it in the policy statement. I would (b.- l propose to attack these several items as well as tha remaining 24 25 items in the policy statement the next time we meet on this i __ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
55 _1 subject which I believe is Thursday, May 7,1981, at 2:00:p.m._ - O --2 MR. BICKWIT:- Mr. Chairman, may I 'ugg'est at'that U s 3 time we might want to consider some alter' natives on the O 4 discovery end? = 5 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: We need to talk some about that bl 6 in connection with the schedule. It may turn out you do not I -k7 have very much of a useful schedule unless you provide some 8 kind of post-SSER control on discovery. If it runs 103 days dd 9 after the SSER, I think shooting for an eight to ten month i h 10 hearing process may not be practical. 3l 11 In the meantime I think you can get yourself gathered U j 12 up on the. items on which we have agreed for the Part 2 rule () 13 changes. One will look forward at some point to a Part 2 rule l l 14 I __ change package which.the _ Commission could. affirm. 2 15 Thank you very much. A 16 (Whereupon, the Commission meeting was adjourned dw at 12:00 p.m.) d 17 j E Q 18 b 19 R TIONS-20 fCKETT td 21l ' ) 22 \\ y/ 23 24 l 6 25 I i ALDERSOM REPORTlWG CO5PAMY, ONC,
Mwa NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '! *.~ C~.I 17 SI -~? -. ~ .T.his.is -to certify that the attached proce~edings befbre'- the '- - ~- Nuclear Regulatory Comission --.Q... in the matter of: DISCUSSION OF REVISED LICENSING PROCEDURES - Date of Proceeding: Tuesday, April 28, 1981 + Docket fitsber: p. Place of Proceeding: 'Rnnm 1130.1717 H St.. Washindton, D.C. ~ were. held-as herein appears, and that thisi is the: original-transcript thereof for the file of the Commission., Marilynn M. Nations Official Reporter (Typed) l L __ ( / Official Reporter (Signature) l l I -}}