ML20031F389
| ML20031F389 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/13/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031F390 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, RULE-PR-2 NUDOCS 8110190736 | |
| Download: ML20031F389 (73) | |
Text
!
WM EZW-.k:0P1 CCM55:38
,r-s COMMISSION MEETING l
l l
5 *= Ma.-
cf:
PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON REVISED LICENSING PROCEDURES -- PROPOSED RULE
~
CHANGE TO PART 2 o
P l
C CA03l':
October 13, 1981
. pAczg:
1 - 71
.'C :
Washington, D.
C.
^
T. (REPOftTLTG AiDOLev l
l 4 c o vi._3_..d.2 A.a, w. w---
g--
, c. c. Ic o 2. 4 Ta '.aph::::a : (200} 554-2245 8110190736 811013 PDR 10CFR
- PT9.7 PDR e
- ~,,
,,.,,,,..,,.,...,...n,
l 4
i.
AR/ar 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 )
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
I 3,
i 4;
e 5
s DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON REVISED LICENSING PROCEDURES --
5 0I g
i PROPOSED RULE CHANGE TO PART 2 b
7)
~
8 8l u
d d
9 N
PUBLIC MEETING E
10 I E
1
=
2 11 :
i
?
d 12 z
5 Room.130, j
13 1717 H Street Northwest, Washington, D.C.
14 x
Tuesday, October 13, 1981 P
15 5.
=
2 16 a*
The Commission convened on the above-entitled d
17
)
18)matterat 2:05 p.m.,
pursuant to notice.
G g
F l
C 19 x
I A
BEFORE:
i 20 l
Nunzio Palladino, Chairman.
21 Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner.
l
)
Peter Bradford, Commissioner.
i 22.i John Ahearne, Commissioner.
i Thomas Roberts, Commissioner.
23 ALSO PEESENT:
24.
a F.
Remick 25 Cotter ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l
2 i
1 A.
Rosenthal G. Cunningham 2l H. Shapar 3l B. Parler l
W. O.1mistead i
J. Rodriguez 4
J. Aron l
e_
5,'
N i
e i
d
)
g 2
7i i
i l
If 5
8' n
d
- }
9l z_
i E
10 )
i 5
i 11 l
<=
4 4
12 l z
i
~
l 9
l E
13 !
l 14 l r
U i
2 15 '
t a
l
=
J 16.
t e
l 1
l 17 m
5 I
E 18.
l E
19,
=
k 20!
21 i i
l 22 ]
23 i
i
-24j l
i
.i 25 1 I'
e I
l t
I
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 9
v.
}:9 DISCI. AIMER 3
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on October 13, 1981 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Wa'shingtori,~0'.' C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general infomational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal J~
record of decision of the matters discussed.
Exprassions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final deteminations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in (p's any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument tyf',
(.'
contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
i-f
~
'.*1 j.
s J.'
s
\\, '
I F
~
t e
4 9
i.
m i
1 J
l i
3 l
I 1i
_P _R _O C_ _E _E _D _I N G_ _S 2j i CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
The meeting will please come to I
t 3l order.
i 4l The topic of today's meeting is the proposed changes e
5 to 10 CF2 Part 2.
There are several items that will be up for i
e j
6 y discussion, including the question of interrogatories, and R
R 7j management of discovery question. on the compelling of oral s
i j
8l arguments -- that the motions to compel discovery, and then u
i d
9j the question of using express mail.
i i
10 l Whether or not we will get to all of them, we are z
=
i j
11 '
not clear, but I L.ought we would start with the management of a
f 12 {
discovery.
E 13 We have a proposed rule discussion prepared by Mr.
=-
z g
14,
Cotter from the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel, the b
E 15 '
chief administrative officer thereof, and I asked him if he would g
j 16 walk through the document that we have prepared and highlight its l
'^
d 17 major features for us.
5 i
}
18 '
MR. COTTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
P j
19.
The paper submitted to the Commission on October 9 j
a o
1 20 ? recites the history --
i I
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Late on October 9.
II l
22]
MR. COTTER:
Late on October 9.
l i
i 23 !
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What's the significance of
+
24 that?
25 '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I left, I guess, at five after i
l 4
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
4 i
1 6:00 on Friday, and it had not yet arrived.
So I didn't get it.
l t
I j
2j MR. COTTER:
Well, that's strange.
It left our officej 1
31 about 4:30.
We got the last input at a quarter after 4:00, I i
4l guess.
l l
g In any event, it recites the history of prior discus-5 H
t j
6 sions of the interrogatory ques t?.on which are contained in the l
l R
1 5
7 original SECY paper prepared by OGC,31-526, and this October 9
~
j 8
paper particularly addre=ses the Atomic Safety & Licensing u
?,
Board Panel pro,posal on discovery which was more broadly framed 9
10 !
than the original proposal which was focused primarily on control 5
i E
11 i of the number of 1.:terrogatories, and whether or not they should i
l 3
f 12 '
be limited to 50 per person per proceeding.
Ej 13 :
This proposal adopts a proposal which has been
=
14 developed by the Judicial Conference of the United S tates, and is
[
15 aimed at an affirmative role for judicial afficers in managing 5
l J
16 discovery in all proceedings.
e I
z i
p 17j It seeks to accomplish that purpose essentially in i
6 E
18 i three principal ways:
=
19.
First of all, it specifically grants an affirmative M
l 20 authority to the judicial officer to act to control discovery.
21 There has been considerable discussion about whether that 1
22 j authority is not already implicit in the judicial of icer's i
23 authority within the Commission and within the courts, but this 24 ' makes the matter explicit and thereby puts an affirmative burden 25 on the judicial officer to act to control discovery, but is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY !NC.
i 1
i 5
l I
significantly different from the general practice relating to 2 l discovery, because the general practice is that discovery is a 3lj I
thing to Le conducted by the parties for the purpose of full i
4l disclosure of all the information bearing on the controversy i
e 5l' by each party te each other party in the proceeding, and this nj 6
practice meant that normally the judicial officer would not R
7' become involved in discover; unless a dispute arose between at sj 8
least two of the parties as to whether or not a matter was I
d I
z.
9i required to be or should be disclosed.
O g
10 The second element that this proposal injects into it E
r s
5 II l is to require ' Ne parties to discovery to make an affirmative j
3 j
12 declaration in every request for or objection to any discovery
=
i 2
13 '
5 action within the proceeding; to make an affirmative declaration z
5 I4 l that the action that they take in connection with the discovery
{
15 is based on, I think it was two or three different criteria,
=
5 I6 one of which is that it is contemplated by the rules governing z
f I7 discovery, or that it should be contemplated by the rules, or is
(
3 18 ;
otherwise not done for negative purposes.
l c
i s
I9 '
g CHAIR EN PALLADINO:
What page is that?
W 20 3 MR. COTTER:
It's page ' and 8, addressing the i
i 21 l general quection of certification and sanctions.
B i
22 ]
The specific criteria governing the certification by 23 the person seeking discovery or objecting to it is that the 24j action is interposed in good f aith and not primarily for delay l
1 25 ) or other improper purposes, but it is reasonable and not unduly l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
w p
m,
+.
9
,y g-aw
l j
6 1
burdensome or expensive under the circumstances of the particular 2i case; and in the first instance, that it is based upon the 3l theory reasonable and warranted by existing law, er a good faith i
4' belief as to what the law should be, i
e 5l Having made that certification, the party then E
4 j
6 becomes subject to sanction if it. in fact turns out that the R
7:
certification was incorrect.
5 N
,q 8l On the other hand, if the certification is not made a
- }
9i at the end of the discovery request, or were objection or other 2
10 action, then daat action can be ignored by the other party as of E
=
j 11 no force and effect.
Q a
f 12 l Those are basically the three significant elements
=.
13 l of this propo2 1, anc it applies across the board, not simply to x
5 14 l interrogatories, but to other forms of discovery, such as b
=
i
.g 15 ;
request for admissions, depositions and so forth.
=
3[
16 l CHAIR N PALLADINO:
I only counted two.
Can you go i
d 17 over them again?
E 18 MR. COTTER:
The second two are tied together.
The E
19 g
a first is an affirmative burden on the judicial officer to assure R
0 20 " that the discovery is not being abused or otherwise misused.
2I The second is an affirmative duty on the person seeking; 4
22 ll discovery to certify that it is essentially done in good faith.
~
23 j
, And the third'is if that certification is not present, 24 either a sanction can be imposed or -- excuse me, if the I
t 25 certification is not present, the discovery request is of no ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
g
- me--
---wyn
-p w-ew-
7 l
1, force and effect.
If the certificat. ion turns out to be improper 2
or false, tne party making it is subject to sanctions.
3I Basically it's two affirmative duties; one on the 4 l judicial of ficer and one on the party seeking discovery, and then i
s 5i it spells out the consequences of f ailure to observe those 9
j 6:
affirmative duties.
R t
7j CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
In your proposal, you do not make i
~
?
8l any statement ' bout limiting the number of interrogatories, as I 9I understand it.
4 5
10 MR. COTTER:
There is a general statement indicating
,E j
11 i that it would be appropriate for the judicial officer, in carrying a
4 g
12 g out his affirmative duties, to indicate that a specific limitation
=
i j
13 '
in interrogatories will apply at a given point in the given
=
z g
14 !
proceeding.
E 5:
It does not specify a specific number of interroga-y 8
=
g 16 tories; that should be limited by the judicial officer, because we x
I s
17 felt there is so much variation among the cases or among the x
~
l
{
18 '
issues at hand, and consequently among the discovery requirements C
8 i
19,
of all the cases, it would not be beneficial to do so.
g
"=
3 20 CFAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are you in a sense, then, 21 l encouraging the Licensing Boards to experiment with limiting d
22 ] the number of interrogatories to some number?
4 23]
MR. COTTER:
I'm encouraging them to use their judgment) i 24 ] in the specific case.
I 25,,
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
The reason I raise the question, l
E I
I t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
>--y
.,--..-yay
-m
_,y yn yp
_._..9,.
8 1
1 i under
" Recommendations, " the OGC recommends that the Commission i
i 2i in the statement of consideration encourage Licensing Boards 3
to experiment with limiting the number of interrogatories to 4l 50 or another appropriate number that one party may file in a 5lIl given proceeding against another party, without receiving the e
1 6
consent of the Board to file additional interrogatories.
L' i
6 7;
MR. COTTER:
In answer to that, no, I am not encouraging-i j
8 I that.
The word " experiment" troubles me, because we have an G
o; 9
unprecedented number of cases to be processed through licensing z
O I
y 10l hearings, and experiments, it seems to me, run the risk of z
i
=
i 3
11 i delaying those cases.
s I
j-12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Nevertheless, you are encouraging i
5 i
j 13 l them when they think it is appropriate to limit the number of
=
i z
g 14 intarrogatories?
~
15 l MR. COTTER:
That's correct.
t g
16 l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So I guess the spirit of that is x
17 encompassed in what you are saying in this document, except F
{
18 that you elon' t ask them to experiment, you ask them to --
i
=
i 6
l9,'
MR. COTTER:
I don't want to quibble with semantics.
"=
4 20 Yes, that's correct.
2Il COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What would your position be l
22 ) on the appropriateness of the Licensing Board Chairman limiting 23)I the number of interrogatories?
24)
MR. COTTER:
I think the time and circumstances would l
l 25 l arise where it would be perfectly appropriate, but I don't think --
l t
i j
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
m-p
,<y,
-yvr,r,-,..
--.,-.,-w m
I i
9 l
1!
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In advance?
I 2l MR. COTTER:
Well, it depends how far in advance you l
3l mean.
I think it would be appropriate when ycu arrive, for 4l example, at the last SER supplement and you have some pretty i
e 5,
accurate idea at that point as to what issues you are dealing 9
l 6
with, and how many; then it seems to me that it could be done E
i 7
in advance, yes, sj 8;
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If you wouldn't do it in advance, a
l n;
9l when would you do it?
z I
10 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought that it might be z
t 5
y 11 I the idea, after a certain number of interrogatories had been 3
d 12 l made, that the Board Chairman would step in and say, "That's 5
i g
13 l far enough."
=
z 5
14 l I'm not recommending that, I j us t thought that
+=
j 15 j might be a concept.
16 !
MR. COTTER:
That is certainly a possibility.
3 M
i b.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
In the recommendations, it is bC 3
18 ;
stated because the ASLBP proposal, if implemented aggressively I
i 8
19,
by the Board, would substantially modify existing practice, CGC
{
g
=
20) recommends the Commissicn adopt a rule on nondiscriminatory 21 pilot basis and commit itself to examining the rule within six 1
22 3 months to a year after it's adopted.
i f
23]1 Then I think you recommend against the concept of a 24 ] pilot program.
i n
25 MR. COTTER:
Yes.
I discussed that a bit in the text l
?
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
j 10 l l preceding this.
I just don' t see how you're going to set criteria 2;
for it now and how you're going to measure it on a six-month i
3l basis or even a year basis, for that matter.
i 4 I I'd be happy, as I indicated,to OGC, to have-them i
,e 5;
take over the responsibility for establishing criteria and S
j 6
measuring it, and then reporting back on the ef fectiveness.
But E
7!
there is so much variation among these cases that I just don' t see I
j 8l how you could do it.
9j CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Suppose you didn't call it a E
i l
10 l pilot program.
Let's assume for the moment that we came down and
_E II adopted your proposal.
Could it not be set forth that we.are a
j 12 l going to follow this from now on, and then take the initiative a E
P
={
13 year later to review and see what we learned from it?
Do you
~
z 5
I4 l think that would not be practical?
{
15 Somehow the concept of a pilot program, even though I
=
y 16,
seem to be leaning that way earlier, I can see it does cause a i
n i
.I7'
'}
problem in the rule.
But if you say this is what we're going
=
i
}
18 l to follow, and then we ask later for a review or an evaluation r
19{' to see whether it's improved the process, could that not be g
20 l done?
I 2I MR. COTTER:
It certainly could be done.
It's within 22 li l
l 3 your authority to do that.
Whether it would be beneficial or a
j
'l l
23 ] not, I can't answer you.
Certainly any party to a proceeding 24 li who knew that the discovery rules were going to be reviewed at l
25 some later date, with an eye to examining whether or not they I
i 4
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 11 l
I should be changed again, I think would fashion his discovery j
2!
tactics accordingly.
9 3l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That's why I was saying we i
4l didn't want to call it a pilot program.
This is what we're going i
5j to follow, if we agree to a it, and then we can review it any e
H i
j 6
time, whether or not we 've made an improvement in the process.
G 7
MR. COTTER:
Yes, you certainly can.
O H
g 8!
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It wouldn't necessarily have to u
9l be in the order.
z c
g 10 i MR. COTTER:
I'm a little leary of responding to that.
z i
I 11 j The General Counsel might like that one better, as to whether or B
2 12 !
not you are setting up a situation where parties to proceedings i
g 13 could come back at you later and say 'that you really intended
=
x 5
I4 l this to be a pilot program, and made guinea pigs out of us.
.e
-=
j 15 i
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think if we adopted it, I E
E 10 i would recommend not having it considered as a pilot program.
r; f
17 MR. COTTER:
I'm not talking about how you would l,
{
18 i present it prospectively.
I'm talking about how it might be P
"g 19
~
reviewed or attacked retrospectively.
=
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do you think it would hurt if 21 l we did say in the rule that af ter a period of time, of a year or 22j more, we believe it would be appropriate to see what improvements j
to review the process, to see what improvements might be 23 24 3 brought about?
25j MR. COTTER:
I think that would be perfectly I
E ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
12 i
I 1
appropriate.
b 2l CEAIRMAN PALLADINO:
There was another point in the l
3 recommendations -- and I think this is your recommendation --
4:
that the Staff should not be required to respond to interroga-i s
5j tories which seek to prove the Staff's thought processes, rather n
j 6L than to obtain factual information with regard to the bases of e
l 5
7:
Staff conclusions.
s 8l MR. COTTER:
I think that's the Appeal Board Chairman's.
J i
9i CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I'm sorry.
i l
y 10 !
Do either of you find any problem with this recommenda-z 1
=
]
11l tion?
E f
12 MR. COTTER:
I do, yes.
My proposal is to the
=
t g
13 contrary.
=
i z
5 I4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You would say you would like to i
I
{
15 require them to respond to their thought processes?
=
I f
16 MR. COTTER:
I think the material in the text
-A y
17 I indicates that it has been dhe judicial experience at large 0
y 18 that it is extremely difficult to separate thought processes
=
l 19 ) from so-called facts, if you will, because ultimately -- and 2
20 -
particularly, it seems to me, in these cases -- because the j
i 21l ultr' ate fact is somebody's judgment.
.I il 22l The Commission, for example, is considering the J
23 i application or probabilistic risk assessment.
Much of what is j
24 i done in assessing the safety of reactors, as I understand it, is I
\\
25, based on that sind of approach, and it seems to me that the i
j l
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
I i
13 l
i 1 ) environment in which these reactort are reviewed in an i
2l adjudicatory process is heavily interlaced with ultimate opinions.
E 3j CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Alan, would you like to speak to i
4I this?
l g
5; MR. ROSENTHAL:
I think it is quite possible to 0
j 6!
separate the two.
Granted, as in.many other areas, sometimes R
7' the line of demaiestion is not that clear.
What I had in mind, nj 8l as I think I indicated, or at least endeavored to indicate at 9li
~
40 the last meeting in which the subject was discussed, was it z,
=
1 y
10 I seems to me to be quite reasonable to inquire of the Staff z=
i j
11l through discovery as to the data which it employed in reaching 3
f 12 l the conclusions which it reached; the analytical models which
=
g 13 l it used in workine the data; all of which, it seems to me, falls
=
zg 14 i within the category of factual information.
t l
15 i It seems to me to be inappropriate to say to the
=
g 16,
Staff, "Well, now," for example, "are you familiar with the work A
N 17 ? of X, Y and Z?
And why is it that if you were f amiliar with their N
3 18,
work and their approach to these problems, why didn' t you use "g
19 their approach rather than the one that you used?"
=
20 Now as I suggested at the last meeting, in the best l
l 21 of all possible words, in a limited time and limited Staff l
b l
22 ] resources, there might be something to say for opening the whole i
I 23 ) book and calling upon the Staff in the discovery process to not l
t i
24 ] only provide the bases upon which it acted, but also consider i
3 fandset forth the reasons why it did not go down some other path.
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l _
4 j
14 i
i 1.
But again, it seems to me, that this is not the best I
2 [ of all possible worlds.
There are time constraints and, even 3(moreimportantlyso, there appear to be substantial resource i
4i constraints.
And it seems to me in the totality of the circum-i g
5j stances to be a fair compromise, if one might put it this way-S j
6 3 I say compromise between the position which the Staff was R
7-initially expounding, of eliminating L L discovery against it, 5
g 8l and the other extreme of saying that I can go after the Staff on J
n; 9l anything, to say, "You are entitled to go after the Staff, again ze i
e 10 !
you are entitled to know the basis upon which the Staff reached E
l 5
II l these conclusions, the data it employed, the methodology it u
i N
I2 utilized."
=
i j
13 '
And that, in essence, Mr. Chairm'an, is where I come x
I4 j
out.
I think, as I said at the very outset, that's a line which C
f 15 l in most cases can be readily drawn.
=
E I6 MR. COTTER:
To sharpen this debate, I should commenc i
f I7 a that to the extent that a request such as that is asking the r
i 5
I8 l Staff in effect to do work for seme other party to the proceeding,
-C i
19 it seems to me that that would be patently improper and would g
l 20 ) not be allowable.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When you ask them wny they 2I b
22 l didn' t do something, clearly you are asking them, in many cases, i
-i i
23i to develop additicnal work.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Alan, are you saying that if 25 + during the hearing the Staf f witness were summonsed and put on f
f I
I 1
i j
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t
[
15 l
I i
1 j the stand and asked that same question, the presiding officer i
I-2!
would have a basis for disallowine it?
3 MR. ROSENTHAL:
No, I don't think that one has to 4
equate what is appropriate on the discovery level with what is I
g 5l appropriate during cross-examination.
I think it's the Staff 5
l j
6:
witness at the hearing itself.
I think it's fair game for R
7 the Staff witness to be asked about somebody else's theories and, a
e j
8f indeed, not only is it fair game, but I think in the circumstances 4
i 9
z, 1
where a Board is confronted with conflicting conclusions of c
10 l!
experts, based upon quite different analytic approaches, and ll !
where the Board is going to aave to make a choice between these 3
i I2 !
experts' conclusions, the Board would be remiss in the discharge 5
g" 13';
of its functions if-it did not itself inquire of each expert x
14,
g l
with regard to other experts ' differing analysis or employment E
I j
15 of different data.
=
f 16 j I am dealing here simply with discovery, and I just
=
a I,-
g think there is a practical reason 6r making the bounds of
=
{
18 l discovery more restrictive than the bounds of examination at i
b I9 '
g i hearing.
i 20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But if the point of II discovery, as I had always understood it, is to save on hearing 22 !
time, then I don't see what you're gaining.
I 23 'i In fact, it seems to me you're losing.
J 24]
MR. ROSENTHAL:
Well, I think that pragmatic 1
25 experience does not bear out that theoretically valid point.
[
d 3
I
- l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYe INCe
l j
16 I k It has not been my experience, in looking at a fairly substantial 2i number of these cases, that this voluminous discovery that has 3
gone on in advance has had much of an effect, if any, on limiting 4(thehearingtime.
I e
5j You know, if you look at it theoretically, one might N.
j 6?
say, "Well, yes, if the Intervenor gets this full explanation R
i 7;
as to why the Staff went down the road it did, rather than some 5
b g
8' other road, it may throw up its hands and say, 'Well, we ' re j us t c
[
9 wrong about this, ' and withdraw the contention."
Z g
10 <
x l
Or they might refine, theoretically, the limits of z=
II l their cross-examination.
m d
12 l I just don' t think, Mr. Bradford, that's the way it i
~
j 13 '
works in practice.
=
z 5
I4 l MR. COTTER:
How could you arrive at that conclusion?
1 j
15 What's the basis for that statement?
i E
i y
16 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me put it, perhaps, a s
f I7 little more tactfully.
E i
y 18 l (Laughter.)
c l
s I9 g
What, then, would the basis for allowing discovery at C
i 20 all be, if it isn't --
i 2I MR. ROSENTHAL:
I think what does happen sometimes is 22 ) that Intervenors who are somewhat skeptical as to whether the 1
4 1
23j Staff has indeed done any kind of real analysis at all, will, if l
24 3 the Intervenor is able, through the discovery process, try to get '
i 25 out of the Staff again what data it employed and what the l
\\
l
[
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I,
=
17 l,
I methodology was.
1 2i I think there have been instances in that circumstance 3
where it has either led to the withdrawal of a contention or i
1 4i the nonassertion of a contention or, alternatively, has much 5
y more nr.rrowly focused the Intervenor's ' cross-examination of the e
i j
6:
Staff at the hearing.
Because if' all the Intervenor knows is R
=S 7,!
that th a Staff has reached "X" conclusion, and really doesn't i
a 8
M know the basis upon which the Staff got to that conclusion, d"
9
~.
you are almost inevitably going to get a great deal of unfocused
?
10 cross-examination.
E_!
II l So I think it can be of substantial assistance to 1
3 I
II '
I g
the progress of the case to have the Staff's analysis and data
=
=]
13 and all of that laid on the table.
5 I
l 14 l I am not persuaded that allowing the Intervenors to e
I O
15 l
b I
go into "why didn't you do it some other way," and "hcw, again, l
=
l l
af I0 anout Expert X's approach to thid' is going to be very -- is going d
17 f to save much time, and it's going to be, in any event, so I've
=
i f
II been led to understand -- Mr. Shapar can speak to that better s"
19 '
l 5
than I -- an enormous drain on limited Staff resources, which is a.
i 20 t l
factor I think one has to consider.
21 I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I guess, though, I don't see k'
22 4) why the tendency to save time would be any less with regard to i
- I i
23 4 i
i the ques tion of "why didn' t you do it in some other way," than i
1 24 2 4 it would be in the case of the question along the lines of "why l
l 25 '
l did you do it this way".
J i
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC _ _
i,
1 I
18 l
i I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I thought the other question 2i was "how did you do it."
3, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, same question.
I 4
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Not really.
"How did you do I
5 it" could be taking up the methods of --
g n
0 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:- Well, okay, but surely in R
5 7l order to give any meaningful answer to the question of "how did 6
i j
8l you do it," you'd have to say something about why you did it that 9}
d" l
way.
And if it's purely a matter of a mathematical equation,
?
5 10 then, of course.
But it can' t be that all that many of these Z
i E
II l l questions are really directed to nothing more than eliciting an d
12 l z
equation.
q i
=]
13 And even then, if there is an alternative equation, 14 l it seems to me to be fair enough to ask --
32 i
=
i g
15 l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Usually it relates to the 6
assumptions being in the equation, rathe.- than the equation itself.
s 17 l
'g "Why did you make this assumption, rather than that assumption?"
=
4 IO :
[
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
As opposed to eliciting the s"
19 assumptions.
j 20 l T.2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Did you get your question 21 l answered?
Why don' t you rephrase. the question?
3 22 *f MR. COTTER:
Maybe I'd better have Commissioner 4
i 23 i
Ahearne rep ^ tate the question, to make sure I understand it.
24f]
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Go ahead.
25 '
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I have trouble putting the right j
l k
I
\\
3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
!j
l 19 l
I answers to the right questions.
j 2h MR. COTTER:
If the question says "why didn ' t you go I
I 3i about resolving the question this way," aftur the person,
4!
answering it has stated how they went about it, the answer is, I
e 5i "because I thought my way was better," and the discovery has i
j 6 ( succeeded in identifying the issue, and at the trial the person R
3 7l who thinks it should have been done another way then has the s
j Sl burden of going forth with evif snce to show not only that his O
i i
9 i way is better, but the other way is somehow defecti ra..
?
10 New if the answer to the question looks at the question Z=
l II l and says, "Oh, maybe that's a good question; maybe I should B
j-12,
have done it the other way," then you get the longer answer.
E i
f13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Then you would not allow a x
f I4 l question such as " explain why you did not use this other 15 l technique" ?
]=
l E
I0 !
MR. COTTER:
I have.been trained never to give a i
f I7 yes or no answer.
I'd have to look at the specifics, but generallyc
=
{
18 no.
c I
s I9 g
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I thought that's what Al'an was e
1 20 '
saying.
2I MR. BICKWIT:
It sounds like your positions are 1
~
22 ) exactly the same.
l
- 23i, CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes, it sounds like they are I
?
24 3 the same, and I thought they were different.
f 25 v2. COTTER:
Well, it could be, except that Alan is
>I a
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I_
l I
20 l
I l more likely -- more inclined to state a generalization than I am l
l 2lonthissubject, for two reasons:
i 3!
One, I am hesitant because I know I have an instinct 4
for the variations that the question comes up in.
I 5l And two, it still remains a matter of individual e
0 i
j 6!
judgment for individual Boards.
R 7
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, now, on page 13, it says :
U f
g 8
"Accordingly, OELD and ASLBP have agreed to 0
9l assign representatives to address these questions and work out
?
I 5
10 principles to resolv". hem."
?
ll!
And one t f the questions I think that paragraph B
y 12 i refers to is the question you raised that begins at the bottom E
13 of page 11 and goes to the top of page 12:
z i
j I4 l "OELD has cited the specific example of an E
i j
15 '
interrogatory asking if a staff member read a certain document
=
j 16 l in reaching his conclusions and, if he has not, requesting him I
w i
h I7 to read it and state whether and how it might change his 5
18 conclusions."
l G
l 19 g
Were you making that study, or was the study being
.7 1
20 ;
made?
2I MR. COTTER:
No.
As a result of preparing this paper, !
22 the Executive Legal Director and I had a conversation, in which i
23 we agreed that would be a good way to approach things, since 24j nothing has been done so far.
9 I
MR. SHAPAR:
Unless the Commission could resolve that f
25 i
W ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
21 1
4 l matter here, in which case that study would not be necessary.
2i i
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Is.the study underway?
I i
l MR. SHAPAR:
No.
We are awaiting the outcome of this j
4l meeting.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I thought you said here, 3
6!
l accordingly, you have agreed to assign representatives.
Okay.
e n
R 7i I
lt's not underway.
N I
E 8 i a
j MR. SHAPAR:
No.
o 9 I j
j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But with respect to that specific issue in your proposed language, you have:
=
g 11l "The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative E
l d
12 l 3
l or obtainable from some other source or method, is either more
=
d 13 ;
s convenient, less burdensome or less expensive."
=
14 i x
E I gather, worded that way, the fact that it would be a 15 :!
Mr burden en the Staff to review some additional work and comment E
f 16 on it, since that could net be obtained in another way, since 4
M 17 l
C the Staff is being asked to review it, it wouldn't fall under
~
l 5
18 :
=
i this.
So I gather --
19 i
MR. COTTER:
You raised two questions:
l 20 :
One, the definition of a burden; and two, whe ther l
l 21 l l
I it would be more easily obtained through some other discovery O
i 22 :l device.
i l
t 23 1 i
l In other words, the preparation of a. written answer 24 to an interrogatory might be more time-consuming than simply i
i 25.
." sitting down and talking.
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
22 l
I '
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me refocus the ques ticn, or l
2i rephrase it:
3 I gather by the fact this is something that has to be 1
4' worked out, ELD has raised the issue that discovery asks the i
I e
5' Staff's opinion of a document which they have not read; and if it E
j 6!
has not read it, requesting the Staff to read it and state how it R
7l might change the conclusions.
A j
8l Now I don' t think you can argue that that ir not a d
9 task laid on the Staff.
zoy 10 MR. COTTER:
True.
z=
i j
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It is a task you are asking
{
12 them to do which they would not have done.
=
5 13 l MR. COTTER:
I don't know how frequently this question z
g 14 l has been asked.
9 E
i r
15 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The fact it has been raised 5
g 16 :
and it is something that har to be worked out, I gather that i
d 17 some people have read the rule you have proposed as that is 5
(
}
18 ;
permissible?
I c
h 19 MR. BICKWIT:
I don't think that follows.
In fact, it M
20 clearly does not follow from the Licensing Board's paper in which 21 l they say:
ll 22 ]
"On firs t blush, this would appea.. clearly burdensome,
- t l
23 1 and a showing could be made to the licensing boards.
[
t t
l 24j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But th at's not wh it the word is.!
l l
6 I
i 25 l The word doesn' t say " clearly burdensome."
l l
l 1
- i I
ALC)ERSOfM REPORTING COMPANV,9NC,
l i
23 i
i 1 l 1m. BICKWIT:
Let me finish the sentence:
1 2)
.a showing could be made to the licensing i
3i beards dhat the interrogatory would not ' serve aaf substantial l
4j purpose,'" which are words used in the
- ule, 5!
So I think it was intended so as not to preclude the c;
I
~
i j
6 rejection of that particular discovery request on the basis of R
7l this particular language.
I think it was not tied down --
5 8I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But it's not a. criori rejected?
n d
9l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No, that 's righ t.
2 10 MR. BICKWIT:
That's right.
z=
j 11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Immediately it's clear.
It's B
f 12 i asking the Staff to do something they haven't done, still is not i
i E
13 i grounds for rejection?
=
i 14 MR. BICKWIT:
A.oriori grounds for rejection.
2 15 It may well be grounds for rejection.
5-i f
16 j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It may well be, but it's not --
W
- j 17j MR. BICKWIT:
That 's right.
x E
18 l!
MR. ROSENTHAL:
That's the kind of thing that ought i
l 19 '
to be absolutely outlawed.
I don't think there ought to be an
.n 3
20 '
obligation on the part of the Staff to have to come in and I
21l satisfy a Licensing Board.
That's burdensome.
It seems to me l'
22 ] to be so far beyond the realm of permissible discovery, as I
i 23 1 discovery is generally understood, that it ought to be ruled out. !
l
.I 24 j CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But it would not be ruled out I
s i
i I
25 under cross-examination; do I understand that correctly' i
i i
l a
ausmL=rdrarsiadaTrrdesnaraarasure_.
l 24 I
1 !
MR. ROSENTHAL:
No.
On cross-exa.nination, you can 2j ask a witness whether he 's read a particular document. If he i
3l says he hasn't read it, that's the end of it.
i 4l COMMISSIONER AHEARME:
Go read it.
g 5
(Laughter. )
A j
6 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Well, you can read to him a section R
7l of the document and say, " All right, now, do you have an opinion l
~
j 8fonthat?"
And he may have an opinion, or he may not, but G
d 9j certainly if the bounds of discovery, as the term is commonly i
h 10 l understood today, are broad enough to entitle someone on discovery i
3_
j 11 to say to his adversary, "You go and read a particular document, 3
y 12 l if you haven't already read it, and tell us what you think
=
i g
13 I about it," I just don't understand the first concept of
=
w i
14,
discovcry limitations.
i
{
15 i COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Are you saying they are that
=
16 l broad?
j i
j
'7, MR. ROSENTHAL:
No, I am saying it is impermissible, x
=
E 18 as I understand it -- I have never heard of an instance of C
3 19 l discovery where an obligation was put upon the discoveree to go R
20 }
and read some document which he had not read up co that point, i
l 21 !
and to come in --
l l
I 22 '
MR. COTTER:
Unless it's a controlling regulation of i
23 his own agency.
I 24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I think an administrative l
t 25 l judge would have to be alert to the fact that some of these de I
ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I i
j 25 1l questions might be pertinent.
2 Incidentally, when you used the words "on first blush,"
3 when I read that, I expected to find "but."
Whenever somebody I
4 i says "on first blush, it looks like this, but," and I had a little l
g 5j trouble with understanding whether or not I missed the "but,"
0 l
6i but that's a minor point.
u i
6 7'
Well, I wonder if ELD has any comments on this point.
~
j 8
MR. SHAPAR:
Well, I had a few general points.
u c}
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
All right.
?
10 MR. SHAPAR:
As I indicated in my meTo to Tony, which 3
h 11 ' is attached to the paper, I can summarize my basic position in B
I g
12 one or two sentences.
E j
13 l I don't have any objection to Tony's proposal, but I
=
1 x
i I4 have doubts as to whether or not it would really do the job that j
j j
15 l ue want done, and I would have no problem with adopting it, but I
=
i 16 j would go further and impose a 50-interrogatory limitation.
A I
l N
I7 '
That's not nearly as important as addressing the i
t I
i
~
18 l problem of probing the Staff's mental processes, which was my
+"
19 g
- original suggestion.
I would like to put the thing in context.
=
t 20 l This whole discussion generated from a particular problem -- by l
l 21 l this "whole discussion" I mean not _only discovery, but improvement a
l 22 j in this process.
3 i
23)
We were concerned about the impacted cases and we y
24 h were concerned about the use of Staff resources.
My original
?
25'.[ proposal was to abolish discovery against the Staf f based on f
i h
ALDER SON REEORTING COMPANYo INCo l.
e
26 s
?
I those premises as the single most important proposal that could be 2:
adopted to save time and have significant.mpact on the impacted j
8 3 3 1 cases.
4t i
That proposal was not adopted by the Commission, and i
g 5l I went to a secondary proposal.
I did mention the experience n
j 6
with respect to limiting interrogatories, and someone else picked R*
7 i
that up.
But then I pushed, most recently, looking at what had n
i 8
5 transpired at the past, at the idea of hitting the chief abuse u
9
[-
from my perspective, which is massive abuse of discovery against c
y" 10 I the Staff, and in particular probing their mental processes.
l 11 l Now I think we can work out very easily a definition as to what ought to be revealed in that context and what ought 13 g
not to be.
Clearly the Staff ought to be able to state what its 3
14 i
conclusion is and what the basis for its conclusion is, and what 9
15
g its methodology is, but as far as being asked questions about T
16 4
have they read this, what do they think of somebody else's z
F 17 f
opinion -- if you're looking for a balance here and you're working l
=
s 18
=_
in the context of these impacted cases and inadequate Staf f i
E 19 '
-=
. eso urces, then here is a place where I think the balance can be l
20 '
achiaved rather easily, and I don't consider it a difficult job 21 i at all to work. out a rule that will protect the Staff, assuming I
i 22 ]
i that the Commission is still unwilling to simply do what they
+
j 23 -
l
- can legally do, and that is abolish discovery altogether against 24 -l the Staf f.
i 25; Now the question has been raised, well, if you can't i
s i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l
27 l
l 1 !
ask it on discovery, why can't you ask it on cross-examination, and' I
2' you don' t save any time at all?
3l Well, in theory there is some merit to it.
In practice l
4j I don't think it holds up The resources of all parties are e
5 somewhat limited when you get to the actual hearing, and the i
j 6l hearing grinds people down.
R R,
7l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think we are now getting l
~
j 8l to the bottom of this.
U 9
MR. SHAPAR:
I take it you want candid expressions of 3
10 opinion here, so that no one is left with any disillusionment.
E j
11l It is standard to ask the Staff or another party a B
y 12 I question like, "Have you read this other book?
And if you i
13 i haven't, will you read it and give your opinion."
=
l 14 I How does the Staff respond to this interrogatory?
b
=g 15,j This question came up at the last meeting when I wasn't here.
I~
l j
16 i I'll tell you how the Staff responds to it:
4
+.
i d
17 -
If we think not answering the question will delay 5
l
}
18j the hearing, we'll pull up our socks and answer the question.
{
19 [
In other words, even though the question i's perfectly 5
i 20l Latrageous in our opinion -- and there are a good many of them --
I l
21 !
and it turns out we are near the hearing and we ccn get to hearing i
22 ) fast, and particularly if 3t's an impacted case, we will pull out 4
i 23 1 the resources and answer the questions.
l 24)
Now, with the problem of the impacted cases and the 25 drain on Staff resources, we are starting to get stickier about t
d i
ll 4
ALD ERSON REPORTING COZB/ ant 7. ONCe
- b
i j
28 l'
I 1
answering interrogatories that we consider to be particularly 2i outrageous, and we have started to object.
l 3!
There is no general rule against demanding that a s
I 4i Board intervene, as someone indicated at the last meeting.
That i
5; policy is essentially unchanged.
And except for that, we are e
5 i
j 6l getting a little stickier about answering questions that we don't R
7 think should be asked.
M j
8!
So it's really a rather complex mix of how we answer d
9!
to interrogatories.
If we think it's going to hold up an 2
i i
y 10 j impacted casa and we can answer it wi thout too much of a drain z
E 4
II on Staff resources, we'll try to answer.
j 3
i j-12 :4 On the other hand, if we get deluged with 200
=
i g
13 interrogatorias, and we have been, with many subparts, and it's
=
z j
- I4l, calling for disciplines like geology that we don't have, that E
{
15 will impact on other impacted cases, because the disciplines are
=
E I0 !
in short supply, then we damned well will object to the interroga-z
(
17 tories and try to get the Board to rule on it.
=
)
{
18 The Boards have been part of the problem here, l
6 I
I9 because the typical attitude in the pasc har been, "Well, why not l g
i n
3 i
N 20,
go ahead and answer the question, anyway?"
2If So the Staff really hasn't had any feeling of security l!
.I 22 about objecting, based on responses some Boards -- not all --
1 i
23 J have given in the past.
l 2*
MR. COTTER:
If that's the kind of problem you 've had, l 25 - you should have brought it to my attention.
This is the first I
J l
'I a
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
l 29 I
I time I' ve heard of this.
2l MR. SHAPAR:
This t;as long before you were here, I
i 3 l Tony, and cured everything.
j I
4 (Laughter. )
l g
5; CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Can I ask you a question, s
j 6-Howard?
If somebody said, "Have you read this?
If not, please 7;l E
read it and give me an opinion," would the answer be, "No, I have B
i j
8j not read it, no, I will not read it, and no, I will not give U
0 9 i an opinion?"
Z, 10 i MR. SHAPAR:
Yes.
And we have done that, z
i
=
i 5
II l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
How many times has that 3
d I2 !
question beenasked?
E g
13 '
MR. SHAPAR:
Well, I have some examples, if the
=
z g
14 ;
Commissioners would like to hear some examples.
C 15 i MR. COTTER-f dondt want examples.
I j us t. -
=
y 16 just want to know how many times.
How many times has it been s
N 17 asked?
h I
G 18 :i Well, you can go back and read the record' MR. SHAPAR:
l 8
I9 2
as well as I, Tony, if you want a really serious answer to that a
20,
question.
2Ij COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Howard, I would welcome your 2
examples, but let me try to understand some of the other things l
22 s
23 l you said.
1 l
i 24j First of all, when you say impacted cases, what do l
25 !
you mean?
There are no impacted cases any more.
They have all I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYm INC.
l j
30 l
Ij disappeared.
2 MR. SHAPAR:
I don't want to get into that debate now.
1 3
Whatever you call an impacted case.
l l'
4; COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, it was your phrase, not I
e 5i mine.
E j
6 !)
MR. SEAPAR:
I saw a recent letter of yours that said R
7 it had gone down from 42 months to 21 months, so I assume i
I j
8l there's 21 months spread out some place.
J n;
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think actually Commissioner z=
\\
g 10 !
Gilinsky and I said zero to five, most of which are in Diablo E
II l Canyon.
3 f
12 l The businesc about mental processes being the most E
j 13 l important point, other than simply eliminating discovery, if I
=
z 5
14 l remember rightly, I hadn't even heard about the mental processes
+
f 15 l concept until Alan raised it at the last session.
=
E I6,
MR. SHAPAR:
It was part of my proposal in the last f
I7 Staff paper that wen t up to the Commission, annexed 4to the E
I3 l
'j l
Staf f paper.
9 l
g 19,
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
How was it that all through 20 !
the spring when we were grinding away on this issue, this type of concern about mental process-related questions never arose?
l 2I l
l 22 lI MR. SHAPAR:
Every time you turn me down on something, l l
23 ) I bring something else up.
(Laughter. )
l 24 25l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's what I thought, but that'@
l l
1 i
3 I
n L
j I
31 l
I different from saying it's the most important thing currently 2j before the Commission.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We apparently did not explore 4l mental processes deeply enough.
i g
5j Howard, there are several of us that would like to hear S
j 6!
a couple of examples.
R
=
As I understand, in the last discussion b
h g
8 you asked three questions that I guess somebody was supposed "J.
2.
9l to provide answers to.
I E
10 l As the meeting was reported to me, question No. I was 3
5 II examples of interrogatories propounded to the Staff in certain 5
4 5-I2 '
of our proceedings which seek to probe the Staff.'s mental 5
i 13 processes.
z I4 Ques tion No. 2, information as to whether the Staff
=x 15 i 5
is now applying a new policy in responding to discovery requests
=
y 16 received from the parties in our licensing proceedings.
I believe z
C 17 y
I have answered that, unless you would like me to elucidate
=
l
}
18 i
further.
4 l
19 '
"j
)
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The only question I have 1
0 there is whether it's possible to ascertain what the impact
- i I
I !
of the Staff's new policy has been.
Have you had enough rulings l 3
l 1
22 !l to say?
j i
i MR. SHAPAR:
I don' t think so.
This is largely by I
23 24,
feeling and by gut.
When it becomes intolerable in our mind, 25 ;
{
depending on the resources that are available, and also as to l
]
3 j
32 I'
whether or not we think not answering it and requiring rulings 2 l by the Board will delay the case, and that's the one thing we i
3:
try to avoid.
1 4j The third question was what is the Staff's experience I
5 g
j with regard to the manner in which the Licensing Boards have H
i j
6!
responded to the recent Commission policy statement concerning E
l 7
expedited hearings ?
8 '2 2
g My ar.swer to the last question is mixed.
Some Boards, d
l n}
9l I think, are making a good faith effort to comply with the z
5 10 l policy statement, and so I phrased this very carefully.
Let me z
=
11 state it this way:
3 Y
12 With respect to other Boards, I have been unable to l
~
g 13 !
discern any overt indicia that would indicate that the Boards
=
l x
I4 {
are indeed trying to comply.
E i
{
15 MR. COTTER:
I am sure you'll be happy to give me
=
j 16 l numbers and particular Boards, as one administrative officer to w
N I7 ano ther.
x
=
f 18 :
j l
MR. SEAPAR:
I'll be glad to.
G I9 g
MR. COTTER:
I have heard nothing to date.
b 20 l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I thought we were going to get i
j 21 !
examples of --
l 3
22l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You're getting examples of l
3 1
23 ) something else.
I 24 (Laughter.)
l 25 MR. SHAPAR:
All right.
Now I think when I give you j
)
I
[
ALDERSON REPORTING. COMPANY lNC.
l t
l l
33 i
1, these examples, your next question is going to be what did the 2 l Bc ard do about it, and I think we have people here who can i
3l respond to the history of these interrogatories.
4 All right, now, I want to turn to General Coun7el i
n 5l for a minute. You heard the context of this discussion.
Is 9
j 6:
there any problem,. as far as you are concerned, in my going R
7l ahead and giving examples in this context?
4 g
8;i e
My own opinion is there is no problem, but I want to d
9 make sure you agree.
z h
10 l MR. BICKWIT:
The answer I have been giving is if z=
5 11 the Commission feels that it needs this, and feels so with good 3
Y I2 !
reason, then there is no problem.
E j
13 !
MR. SEAPAR:
Okay.
y 14 i CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do you have to identify the case?
$j 15 l MR. SHAPAR:
Not unless you ask me to.
Why don't I l
=
j 16 start off by not, and see how we go?
s f
17 MR. COTTER:
Could you do it by year?
=
}
18 i
MR. SHAPAR:
By year?
"g 19 MR. COTTER:
By year the question was asked.
n 20 j MR. SHAPAR:
I'll tell you whether I think it's a 2I current case or not.
That's the best I can do.
But we can ll 22 ) provide you the information later if you want it.
I 23)
"Ccmpare the quantity and quality of research and l
24 data that were availab.'.e in the SONGS geoscience review for the 25 Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone.
The segment of the OZD offshore a
3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
l 1
34 3
l 1 !
from SONGS, the Cristianitos Fault, and the Cristianitos zone of i
2l deformation.
3 ;l "Do you agree that it would be helpful if quality l
4 and quantity of data in the OZO and OZD were closer to that i
I e
5; available on the Newpert-Inglewood fault zone?"
S j
6!
COMMISSIONER. 3 RADFORD:- I didn't understand that.
R 3
5 7
(Laugh ter. )
i I
j 8
You did a masterful job of concealing the proceeding d
d 9l in that one.
N i
10 !
(Laughter.)
z
=
j 11l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
He spelled it.
He didn't i
j 12 l pronounce it.
5 l
g 13 :
MR. SHAPAR:
" Compare the amount of trenching done
=
z i
14 l on the Cristianitos fault znie done by SONGS applicants to the 4
j 15 '
amount of trenching that has been done along the Verona Fault E
g 16 :
by the applicants at the Vallecitos Nuclear Center in Northern I
y 17 California, since a.new fault was discovered near the reactor N
[
18 there by the USGS in September 1977
?
I 19 ;
" Compare the amount of offshore research done by 6
I t
20.
the applicants for the Diablo Canyon reactors with the amount
~
21 of offshore research done by the applicants at SONGS.
Include a 22 ] comparison of the snounts of money spent on geological and l
\\
23 seismic research by the two applicants.
243 "Please compare the amounts and types of research 4
6 25, on offshore geology and seismology done by the applicants at
.l i
}~
15 I
I Diablo Canyon to that done by the applicants for SONGS 2 and 3."
2l Those are some examoles.
3l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Cnly thes first one, referred to I
41 thought process.
The others were examples of work being asked, I
5l a comparison of amount of work done in the trenching, and a s
9 j
6 comparison of resources.
But only the first one asked for --
R t
b 7I NE. SHAPAR:
We are using mental processes as a I
a j
8l shorthand.
a 9i CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Maybe that's the point to clear
?
I
-y 10 i up, that the Board chairmen should make sure that work that is z
4 5
y II l put on the Staff is actually needed for this case.
Maybe there m
l j
12 I is a better way of saying it.
E 13 i MR. SEAPAR:
Actually the proposal that I made in z
5 I4 the Staff paper that went up to the General Counsel, to which
=
l g
15 { my proposal was an attachment, did have some criteria for just l
=
t d
10 !
that purpose; namely, that it was necessary to put the z
f I7 preparation of the Intervenors ' case -- they couldn't get it
=
E 18 l elsewhere, and that there were a couple of other criteria as well.
i G
g I9,
Those are some examples of the type of' interrogatories 20,
that we ' re getting.
21l (Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., Commissioner Gilinsky A
s 22) left the meeting room.)
~
i 23 MR. ROSENTHAL:
I would say with resoect to these
\\
24 d comparisons, the Staff is being asked to make, those would be i.
i l
25 beyond permissible discovery under any test, as I had suggested; f
i
.r l
t I
s t
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
36 l
I that asking the Staf f to read a book and comment on it would be 2 l beyond the pale.
3l I don't tirdc discovery is at all designed, under i
4 anybody's test, to pc"mit a question which calls upon the Staff i
g 5l to perform f"
. er analysis, either by way of comparing A with j}
6 B or otherwise.
?
h i
MR. SHAPAR:
I thought someone would raise that 5
8 5
question, because really it follows from the context, and the d"
9
~.
answer, I think, is if you have an amorphous rule, like don't 7
10 g
unduly oppress the parties, and those are the standards you have E
i I
{
l to use, history has shown those amorphous standards don't work out d
12 !
z very well.
=
l
!I l
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Did the Staf f object to those 5
14 i E
l Interrogatories?
k t
15 '
b j
MR. SHAPAR:
Scme we did,t.and some we didn't.
u i
16 !
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
T aka the com=arisons.
~
17 h
MR. SHAPAR:
The Staff objected to it.
=
l E
18 '
I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What did the Board rule?
19 !
i E.3 j
MR. OLMSTEAD:
We got most of the objections sustained. l I
20 !
l One of them wasn't, and the Board decided to go into that matter P
21 l on its own motion.
22 'J MR. SHAPAR:
You realize it takes time to object 23 i
j and for the Board to rule.
If you had a clear-cut rule, depending:
S 24 jonwhatyoudecide, whatever it is, and the rules say you can't i
25 !
- do this, and it has rather specific criteria as to what's i!
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
I 37 1hpermiarible, then you don't waste time going to the Board and sjecting, because the rule should take care of it.
3, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But the rule never takes 4l care of it unless you're objecting.
That's what you're saying, 5l they won ' t file it because --
e E
j 6
MR. SHAPAR:
They won't file it after --
R 7l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But if instead you say you i
~
j 8'
can have 50 interrogatories, and you get questions like that 4n 9I in the 50, you're going to have, if anything, more of a problem, z,
o 10 !
rather than less in getting rid of them, because there will be l
11 j some tendency on the part of the Boards to feel, well, the a
f 12 l Commissien put in the 50 rule, we 'll grant considerable latitude E
I j
13 l within the 50.
=
x 14,
j j
MR. SHAPAR:
You've got a potential mix here that I l
c t
g 15{l think, as Commissioner, you have to balance out.
You've got l
=
i i
j j
16 l Tony's proposal which in effect says to the Board, "Get involved s
d 17 more yourselves and control discovery without waiting for the x
l 3
18 l parties to come to you."
f
=
i i
b I
19 '
i g
I consider that a noble aspiration.
My only reserva-
=
20 '
tion is about whether or not it will work, based on past 21 [ experience with that kind of injunction to Boards.
l 22 ll Let me finish, Tony.
i
- i i
l 23]
And the other proposals are the 50 interrogatory 24 j limitation.
None of these are mutually exclusive.
And more I
6 25 importantly, some kind of ; c ction for the Staff, where you l
t l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l.
38 l
l i
1 have a real serious problem.
2 I think you have to ask yourself are there now abuses 3
to the discovery process?
And I think clearly the answer is yes.
4l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I'm not sure we know that, i
i g
5i Howard.
That's one of the things that bothers me.
We have just E
j 6j imposed a much greater mandate on the Boards to in general be R
7; more active managers of the hearing process, and we have told t
8l the Staff that they can object to some discovery requests perhaps
'd 9!
in a manner different than what they did before.
And one of z
c i
y 10 !
the difficulties with trying to decide how much further to go at z
i
=
j 11 this point is that we really don't know how well that effort is B
i j
12 I working out.
=
g 13 '
MR. SHAPAR:
Commissioner, the common perception is that
=
- n 5
14 ;
discovery is being massively abused in the federal courts, and
$j 15 j whether rightly or wrongly there is a perception: that discovery is i
y 16 l being abused in all regulatory agencies.
l d
17,
MR. COTTER:
There is some evidence somewhere, and 5
i I.
y 18 l based on what I have heard this afternoon, I'm wondering if we 1
19, have again spent another hour and a half on a nonproblem.
If n
20 I the best you can come up with is three questions, only one of 21 l which may have to do with the mental process, and one of which i
12 ) was ruled on favorably to the Staff, I do not see a demonstration 4
23 h of a problem.
l 24j I hear rhetoric, and that's all I see.
i 25 l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Tony, how long does discovery J
i
- l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l.
39 I
i l
Il take in the average case?
2 MR. COTTER:
I don't know if I can answer that.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Five months?
Six months?
Is it i
4!
that order of magnitude, er are we talking five weeks or six 5l l
weeks?
a j
6l MR. COTTER:
It would be more the former than the R
7 latter, but I don't know that any data has been compiled on this.
n 2
gi n
l MR. SHAPAR:
Four to six months, I would say.
a 9i The only nonproblem I've heard, by the way, discussed 10 '
j today, at least from the discussion, is whether or not the
=
E 11 g
Commission is inclined to make this an interim rule.
12 !
f Let me just point out that the Commission can put
=
=
13 j
this out as an interim rule if they want to, and there is no 3
14 3
strong reason or sensible reason I have heard against it.
Or e
9 15 g
they could put it out as a final rule, and say in the statement
~
16 y
of consideration, "We intend to reconsider tni:s in six months 17 '
d j or eight months," or not even put in a time period.
5 i
z 18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I was going to make a proposal,
=a" 19 "j
- but I first wanted to find out whether any Commissioners felt i
l
'O '
they were leaning toward fixing the number of interrogatories.
^
i i
21 l
I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, for myself, as I i
22 i i
unfortunately did not, from one circumstance or another, get to 5
23 1 i
- i this until today, because it arrived af ter --
t 24 a l
]
CHAIRMAl* PALLADINO:
But the limit on the interrogatories 25 ;
- was in the other --
i 3
AL.DERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 40 i
i i
1 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I understand that, but part I
2l of that discussion last time was to ask Tony to come up with this 3
proposal.
i 4!
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I gather that was in part because i
5l I didn' t see a leaning toward interrogatories, and I am really e
9 j
6 re-raising the question.
R 7
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Until I read through this
~
l j
8l carefully, I cannot answer your question.
d i
y 9l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But prior to having received 2
i
=
y 10 l this?
z
=
II l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Prior to having received it, I
's f
12 l had been leaning away from a limit on interrogatories.
E t
j 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: How about you, Tom?
=
z 5
I4 {
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
My inclination is not to limit c=
i z
15 the number.
E I
-j 16 :
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Don't look at me.
m N
I7 (Laughter. )
E s
18,
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I thought maybe I had three votes j
=
b I9 ;
without voting.
g n
20h COMMISSIONER BRADFOUD:
I am not inclined to limit the I i
21l number.
I i
22 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, I've got to say, neither am l 23 l I,
based on the arguments presented in here.
But I do find there !
24 3 are some things we can do, based on this paper and the discussion l
25 I have heard:
m
/
I el i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP _ANY, lNC.
[
l 41 I
1 One, I do think that we can ask the Boards to take l
2i control of the discovery process along the lines outlined in here.
3
'I think it is appropriate to ask the individual to certify and i
l 4i then be subject to either denial of their petition, if they are I
e 5;
not honest, or sanctions, if it turns out later -- and I believe r
i H
l j
6l that there is a need to limit the. kind of questions that relate R
R 7'
to the Staff's thougnt process, although I think it goes further
~
j 8
than that.
It's actually laying on additional work on the Staff, d
d 9
and if that could be rmwritten, I think it would be helpful, i
.h 10 So I would propese that we do adopt this, but I s
g 11 would propose that it be done not on a pilot basis, but that we a
f 12 l just do it, and I would not mind saying in the -- I guess --
=
i 13 !
what is this, a rule -- that we would like to examine this at the E
E i
l 14 i end of the year, or will examine it at the end of the year to see b
15 :
what improvements have come about as a result of it.
E 5
j 16 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I have John's problem in
- ^
\\
d 17 terms of having it seen it only a little while ago.
I don't x=
{
18 object in principle to going in this direction, and I guess I c
i
[
19 ;
would like to look more closely at the wording of the certifica-E i
20 i tion, but I have no problem with the concept.
21l I am doubtful that we will come up with wording that j
3 i
22 I would be very comfortable with -- maybe we will -- on the r
23 ] business of inquiring into the Staff's mental processes or j
l 24 j requiring new. work.
j i
25 l My information there is to follow the point that Alan
l 4
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANYo INCe I.
42 i
I 1
has made, that this should not be permissible even under the 2 l existing rule, and in the absence of some showing that in fact 3
the Staff has been required to go out and do extensive new i
4l work, to let that be part of the larger order that we are giving e
5 to the Board.
E j
6i But if you would like to have language --
R 7j CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Here is the problem I have:
You
~
j 8!
propose -- you identify the way you analyze the problem.
You d
9!
identify the assumptions, and you identify the method, and you 2
l 10 l say here is my conclusion.
z=
{
11 Now there may be a dozen dif ferent ways of doing it, a
j 12 !
and it may all lead to the same conclusion, but that's not
=
i h
13 necessarily apparent at the time the question is asked, so there r
z g
14 is a whole slew of other alternative methods that someone could
_=
15 ask you about and say, "Have you done it?"
And if you say no, g'
16 ;
there is an implication that you have not oeen complete.
m p
17 I think that in most of these situations, it is x
~
l 5
18 l appropriate if you have a good, sound way of analyzing it, you i
19 g
i don't have to show that it's better than any other way of analzying n
i 20 h it.
2Il However, where I have a little bit of problem with 0
22 ) this is when we come to the assumptions, because if you say I d
23 ) analyzed it by this method, Joe Blow's method, and I say, oh, J
24i but an important and inherent part of Joe Blow's method is this l
25, assumption, which I think is not appropriate, I think when you l
l Ak@@C%Td)N MMP@@VDN@ C@M@AN% ONCe i-
l 43 1
1 !
i get to the assumptions behind some of these methods, I believe it 2,
i is important to discover why that assumption was used.
l 3l Now that's where I'm having a little problem with this,i i
4!
because assumptions are the bane of most engineering calculations, i
5l eg l
and too often they go unrecognized by the people making the a
3 6:
calculation.
a t'
7l n
So now after having said that, how do you write this?
n u
5 8!
MR. BICKWIT:
The way you have formulated your s
9i j
i proposal, you preclude only requests to do additional work.
That oh 10 E
would not preclude questions with respect to assumptions or why E
11 !
j i
you did not go down alternative paths.
You've got three d
12 l 5
recommendations.
I E
13 -
E CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But I don't want to have to say, 5
14 '
s i
look, there might have been three paths, I chose this one, it's 5
15 r
adequate and I showed that it's adequate, and therefore I don't i
?
16 l y
have to explore the other alternative paths.
I say that's okay, i
@H I shouldn't have to answer why I didn' t go down the alternative 17 C
z 18 i g
j paths.
l I
19 !
E l
However, if in the path I chose there is an underlying 20 '
f assumption about which I would like your understanding of why it 21 !
) is applicable, maybe I would ask why is it applicable in this 22 j case.
I'd say that is something reasonable.
23 l
MR. BICKWIT:
I must say I have a hard time l
24 1
.i differentiating between the two concepts.
In the one case you arei 25 saying it's all right to have to justify an assumption, and in ALDERSON REPORTING COMP /3MV, ONC,
44 I
i 1 !
my terminology, an assumption may lead you down a given path.
2l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I agree.
i 3l MR. BICKWIT:
So that I think it's hard to say no 4,
questions about paths, but questions about assumptions.
I would 1
1 g
5; say you ought to deal with them both the same way, and I think E
j 6
most of the recommendations you have got are to the ef fect that 5
h 7;
questions with respect to why you didn' t go down another path j
8i ought not to be permissible.
J 9!
My own inclination is to the contrary, that I don't z
O i
y 10 !
really feel that that would be an exceptional demand on the Staff, z
i
=
I II l but this is not my field.
?
\\
d 12 l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It could well be, because to 5
g 13 !
answer completely, let's just take two places.
You've done one,
=
z 5
14 l you've gone through all the calculations and reached a conclusion.
b
{
15 To really answer completely why you didn't do the other, you do
=
i j
16 !
the other, and you do the whole calculation, and then you compare M
l N
17 it and you show that, yes, the answer is approximately the same.
}
18 MR. BICKWIT:
I think those are dis tinguishable b
g 19 ;
questions; one, why didn't you do the other; and two, do the 20 other.
And it seems to me that everyone is together on saying 21 !
-- everyone is together except maybe for Peter, I don't know --
k 22 3 on precluding the request to do the other.
]
j 23 ],
The hard qt.stion that remains unresolved is how do you deal with questions, "why didn't you do the other"?
I 24 25 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't mind precluding doing d
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l
j 45 l
1!
the other, but I'm prepared to say that in most cases I could l
2; bet I could almost compel the Staff witness to do it on the 3
witness stand, if it came to cross-examination.
4; MR. ROSENTHAL:
Discovery, after all, is to get the i
5 g
basic facts underlying your opponent's position, so you can deal N
j 6!
with it at trial.
R 7l Where I come from, it is enough if the Intervenor is 5
b
^
g 8l aware of what the assumptions are that the Staff employed, because 9!
~.
then he can prepare for trial, and if he's got somebody who's
?
10 g
going to be prepared to take on those assumptions, then that
=
i II person can be produced and can deal with it.
kI I agree with the General Counsel that I think the 4
.f 13 '
distinction that the Caairman made, I would have some problems x$I with.
Where I come out, though, is on exactly the opposite k
i 0
g 15 ( side.
I don' see any reason at all, taking discovery again i
f 16 l in its traditional sense and its traditional purpose, for requiring z
I 17
's the Staff to say anything more than these were the assumptions E
i z
18 4
that we employed, and if you don't like those assumptions, then s
i
..j 19 l we'll meet you in hearing on them, and you can cross-examine 20 our witnesses on the validity of those assumptions, or you can I
i 21 1 i
h' produce your own witness who will challenge it.
22 i
And I think maybe it's just that I have a different l
l 23 i i
- view--it'squiteapparentadifferentview--thanCommissionerf j
l 24{~ Bradford does as to what the function if discovery is, and what l
25 f really the line of demarcation is, as to what is appropriate I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
I l
46 I f discovery and appropriate cross-examination.
I 2l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I don't think our difference is 3l!
l in the function of discovery, Alan, I think it's in whether one 4
serves that purpose by allowing somewhat more latitude.
I 5l e
MR. COTTER:
There's also a corollary that's related 0
j 6
to this, in what Alan. is. saying and Howard averred to it earlier.
R*E 7;
Ecward put it in terms of answering the question if it will
~
j 8l serve not to slow down an impacted case.
4 i
z.
9l You also answer questions during discovery fo'r the 10 purpose of eliminating a possible issue from the trial, because z=
5 Il !
you know that the answer will satisfy the question.
3 f
I2 f CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But there is a point that Alan 4
1 13 '
brought out, and I heard you say it before, but I didn't focus z
5 I4 on it, and that is that you have the opportunity to challenge E
15 l
{
assumptions during the hearing process itself.
I6 l i
MR. ROSENTHAL:
If you know what the assumptions are, A
h I7 then you kr.ow what you have to meet, and that's what discovery is
=
l IO l all about.
j s
s i
I9 CHAIl01AN PALLADINO:
So a question about what g
20 assumptions did you use, that would be alJewable, even under 2I l this restrictive --
22 MR. ROSENTHAL:
In my view of it, that goes into I
i 23 ) factual information.
I i
24 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me modify my proposal and 25 l get rid of that little caveat and say in my proposal, I would say l
I t
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 47 l
1 I
we should have something in there about not requiring the Staff 2
to respond to interrogatories which seek to probe the thought i
3 ll process or place additional work, uncalled-for additional 1.crk l'
I i
4!
on the Staff.
i I
g 5l MR. BICKWIT:
On the thought process. te rminolo gy, I S
j 6i must say until this meeting I had a completely different under-R 7; standing of what thought processes meant, and my remarks at the i
~
j 8
last meeting were directed to back-up calculations as the classic
?c 9
example of thought processes.
z, C
10 ll Now if that is not what is included within the 3
5 II l definition of thought processes -- and it sounds like from this 3
12 ; discussion it is not -- I think that has to be made absolutely 5
i 13 clear if you're going to use that term.
m f
I4,
CHAIR N PALLADINO:
I was going to suggest that our 15 l learned colleagues, learned in the legal profession, try to j
=
j 16 l reword that so that it could serve our purpose better.
i i
N I7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think we have enough to go on e
I
~
y 18 to draft something that will meet that criteria.
l C
19 '
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Since a namber of Commissioners 3
Q l
i 20l did not get this until very late, why don't I let my proposal stand l
}
2I [ for their consideration between now and the next meeting, and I l
l 22 ) will see if I get any cbjection to asking that the appropriate i
l 23 ; parties get together and try to fix this up to meet this t
24 j proposal.
I 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
n l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
____j
48 I
IIf COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Joe, when you broaden the 2 l concept of thought process, keep in mind what will happen, The 3l:
basis for trying to deal with this kind of issue through f
4 !
discovery is one person, a Staff witness, will sit down and take i
5l l_
l however long it takes to write out the answer and send it back w
j 6'
to the person who proposed the question.
R S
7 If instead you leave it to the hearing process to 3
J A
8, drag out that same information, you will have that same witness J"
9 having journeyed to whatever part of the country he has to go to, Erg 10,!
sitting on a witness stand with a lawyer trying as best he can z
i
=
i 5
II l to elicit the same information from him, hour after hour, in a 3
j 12 !
hearing room, with all the parties, including the Board members,
5 l
13 ;
essentially sitting there spinning their wheels through the same E
I4 j
l period of time.
k 15 And the underlying principle of discovery is that it's f
16 l suoposed to be a faster way of getting at the same information.
m f
I7 Now, granted, if you allow very broad questions and
=
18 fishing expeditions, it can become a waste of time.
But once there w
I I9 +
n i
is general agreement that the information is legitimately sought d
20 l after, then the basic principle is it's generally more ef ficient 2I to get it through a well-managed discovery process, than to use 22fhearingtime.
i 23l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If my understanding is correct, 1
24 3
.! what work has been done, the basin for the calculations, the 25]!
basis for the conclusion, the assumptions, are all set forth on I
r ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
l 49.
i I
1 what could be asked about in the discovery process, and then the 2 l individual party enat receives the answers has to decide what, if i
I 3
anyt.hing,he or she wants to do about it.
i 4l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
And I had s
5 thought the assumptions had begun to float loose again.
O j
6' CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
No.
I erased the part that R
n 7
spoke about assumptions, because I figured, well, as long as c
d g
8 l some place in the process you can ask the question about it, I'd d
q 9i be inclined to go ahead.
i
?
I 10 The only time assumptions are important is when they z
11 are in controversy and usually they don't come up unless they S
l d
12 l are in controversy, in controversy in the general sphere of
=
13 I knowledge in that area.
Z For example, you try to talk about pressure drop witt.
5 14 i b
=
i
.g 15 !
two-phase flow, and I don't care what assumption you make, you E
I 16 !
i can argue about it.
is d
17 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But it is shorter to have that w
E i
18 l discussion in essay form.
You see, what Howard is talking about --
z I
c I9,!
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
No, you can find that discussion g
i 20 in almos t any textbook.
2I I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But that makes it easier te l
22,
cite it for purposes of discovery.
I 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But the applicability to your I
1 24 j particular problem may be different.
I don't know, we're getting !
1 1
25j f ar afield.
i i
- )
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l j
50 l
I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But there's a legal tactic 2 [ at play that you ought to be aware of.
What the Staf f wants,
3 and Howard was quite candid in dulaying it out, they know the 4
parties are going to be worn down, day after day in the hearing; I
e 5j that somebody who can barely afford to pay his lawyer at all is 9
j 6l going to be a lot less able to get the same information if the R
7l hearing goes on for six or seven days, then if the guy has to l
~
j 8!
spend half a day writing down discovery requests.
a 9l That's one of the reasons I've been concerned that
?
E 10 we have the Staff here at the table, and we don' t have any other E
i 11!
parties, because they're here as advocates.
a I2 !
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Can I ask at least two points 13jl
~
on the last point?
i E
I4 '
't I'm sure that Tony and Alan did not view themselves j
15 l as the Staff.
=
E I6 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The Staff are not Tony and Alan.
-A N
I7 Howard is the Staff.
5 18 l C
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But we have other people here
=
19 l i
g in addition to ours, and it seems to me Alan was making a very 20l persuasive argument.
21ll But, peter, isn't it correct in general that it is not I
i 22 :
just we or some of us who have been concerned about the development 4
i 23 ] of the application of discovery?
f, 24 l
Maybe I have just had a bad selection of writings to read, but it appeared to me this was a problem that the ABA and f
25 4
d I
a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, lNC.
I
l l
j 51 i
Ilj others have been focusing upon; that is the concern about the 2l way discovery is practiced.
I 3l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's why we have told 4
the Boards to manage it better, and we don't yet know how that 5l effort has worked out.
s A
l j
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I just wanted to make sure.
R b.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
There isn't that much about j
E!
g 8 !
management of discovery.
This is specific to management of J:!
9 discovery, and I think supplements the previous statements on z
O i
y 10 l this subject.
5 II COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
As I say, my concern is as a I2 general point, but to the extent that we are now going to start 5
=]
13 i
defining particular categories of discovery that we want the i
z 5
I4 '
Boards to rule negatively on, I think that's a mistake.
5 l
{
15 '
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If there is strong differences of g
16 opinion on the way that last point should be stated, we might get z
N I7 more than one input, s_
18 ;,
3 Well, can we leave that as I described a minute or l
l c
i I9 '
b t
two ago?
l g
20l Yes?
l 21 -
MR. BICKWIT:
Before you do, I would just like to lay k
22 l out an issue for t.he Commission when they consider the mattar, i
i 23 ] and come back to the table, that one of the values I see in 1
24 ) Tony's proposal is that it will allow a Board to engage in I
I i
25 unusual methods of discovery as opposed to the usual, and to t
i l
I I
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
j 52 l
Ifpermit, in lieu of discovery, informal document exchanges and 2'
colloquies; further, to permit pre-clearance of all discovery 3l requests through the Board.
4i These are matters which I think the Board ought to 5l e:
try out.
r G
6!I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There is a lot of informal n
8 7'
( exchange of documents now.
p 3
8
]
l MR. 3ICKWIT:
There is that, but under existing rules 5
9i j
j it cannot be in lieu of discovery, and it cannot be associated e
i P
10 l j
with pre-clearance requirement.
This is to me the most
=
3 11 g
j controversial feature of what's being proposed.
I'm on board i
12 l g
with it, but i think the Commissioners ought to think pretty E
13 !
seriously about it.
j 14 y
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
=
0 1 '4 MR. COTTER:
Can I add one point?
- l 16-l I'm concerned about the mental process area in this H
17 g-respect:
It seems to me that this Commission, more than ry G
18,
=
other government agency with which I have had contact, isinclinedl t
I 19
.o jump into and make decisions on procedural matters such as
-=
s 9
20.i this, that the legal profession as a whole has been wrestling withl 21 !
- i. over a much larger scale, a longer period of time.
h 22 1 1
And I would urge caution on the Commissioners in a
i 23 )
j connection with any revision of or specific language on the 24 subject of mental processes beyond what is presently offered, 25 '
because I think that there are so many pitf alls that are availablei l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
J.
53 l
1l there, that an affirmative thrust forward could be counterproductivc 2laswesayinthegovernmentthesedays.
i 3!
CHAIRMAN PALLADE!O:
Tony, would it be appropriate I
i 4'
or desirable or helpful if we, in a sense, threw it back to the I
g 5,
panel by this way, that you don't explore the thought processes A
d j
6 unless it can be shown to the satisf action of the Board that R
7; this is necessary to complete the discovery process?
3l' 8
MR. COTTER:
That's essentially the standard that's c
l 9:
in there now.
Will answering the question serve a substantial z
t 0y 10 purpose in connection with litigation.
z i
j 11l CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But this speaks more specifically 3
i j.
12 !
to the fact that for this class of questions, the person who is 3
i j
13 I raising it has to show justification that asking this question is x
i 14 l an appropriate exemption to the rule.
E i
j 15 l MR. ROSENTEAL:
There would have to be a standard, E
g 16 wouldn't there, against which the Board would measure whether w
p 17 l there was a need to, permit that kind of discovery or not.
x 2
3 18 l MR. SHAPAR:
I would agree.
I think the Commission e
i b
19
(
l
=
needs to articulate a standard that will bind the parties and 20!
the Boards.
I 2ll MR. COTTER:
There is a lot of law available in cases 22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
The more I try to get into 4
t 23 j trouble, the more I try to be specific.
I'm going to leave it I
J i
24j to the appropriate legal minds to guide us on this and come up l
i 25 l with a proposal, and if you feel that there are two alternatives I
d-
'i ALDERSON REPORTING _CO_MPANY. INC.
I.
54 I
1; that we ought to consider because of differences of viewpoint, I i
2l would say we should listen to both.
If we can leave that for i
3i now, we have two other items that relate to proposed changes in 4
i 5l The next one is to permit the Licensing Board to order e
9 j
6 oral responses to the motion to compal discovery, and the R
?
7; other one has to do with use of express mail, and I wonder if OGC s
j 8
would just refresh our memory and highlight the arguments on u
y 9'
this issue.
?
I 10 l MR. BICZNIT:
On the first, permitting Licensing z=
j II l Boards to order parties to provide oral responses to motions I
S-I2 l to compel, three offices are in support of adopting a variant 5
l f
13 of the rule.
That is OELD, the Appeal Board, and OGC.
14 The Licensing Board does not agree with the proposal, E
15 g
it appears largely because of the view that the existing rules
=
l y
16 l already allow the Boards the discretion to provide -- to order m
f I7 parties to provide oral responses.
5 3
18 My own view is that the rules don't presently allow 5
"g 19,~
th at, and that a rulemaking is therefore in order if that's 20 the way the Commission wants to go.
21 A number of issues were raised in the comment period, 22 j and the four offices would resolve them as follows:
0 The four offices do not be.'.ieve that is necessary to l
23 24 have a court reporter transcribe the oral argument that's made.
i 25 I I
! It would suffice, it appears to us, to have the Board issue a j
f
.i 0
- i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i,
55 1. written order which would summarize the argument of the opponent 2lofthemotiontocompel, and then if the cpponent was dissatisfied i
3l with the summary, he could file a motion indicating that, in order 4i to change the summary.
I 5l The four of fices also believe that the statement of e
R N
j 6'
considerations should say that oral responses should only be n
2 7 l required where early completion of the proceeding is necessary,
~
j 8f and it should also specify that all parties are to be invited to a
i d
94 participate in any conference call associated with these oral i
i e
i s
10 l responses, and that the Board should take the call.
_3 j
11 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If I could interject.
By the 3
I f
12 j response, do you mean the response to the interrogatory?
'=
i 13 i MR. BICKWIT:
No, the response to the motion to compel.
=
s 14 :
What you will have in a typical situation --
5 2
15 ;
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is it obvious there is a right S
t j
16 ;
to respond?
i d
17 MR. BICKWIT:
My reading of the rule is that they have i
N l
18 a right to respond to that motion in writing, and what you are f
19 doing --
a 20.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is that an agreed interpretation,?
i i
21]
MR. BICKWIT:
Tony disagrees with that interpretation. l 22 :
MR. COTTER:
I said there was some question.
My only 4
4 23.1 objection to the whole ching is there seemed to be lots of i
24 ll contingencies hung on it.
Otherwise, I agree.
l i
l E
6 nd 3 25 ;
l l
I 4
i l
ti ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
56 1
ER. BICKWIT:
I will read you the rule.
2.730(c) 2 says that within ten days after service of a written motion 3 or such other period as the Secretary and presiding officer 4may prescribe, a party may file an answer in support of or Sin opposition to the opposition.
Filed to me means in 6 vriting.
7 3R. SHAFAR:
I agree.
I think Len is correct.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And it's clear tha t the 9 Boted would have to wait for that response?
10 MR. BICKWIT:
I believe so, yes.
There's a right 11 to file.
There is a right to have your filing considered.
12 CHAIRMAN PAlLADIN04 Now this oral presentation 13 would no t necessarily have to be made with the Boards 14 sitting with all the parties present?
It can be made by 15 telephone?
t I
i 16 ER. BICKWIT:
That's correct.
We envision that it 17 would be done by conference call.
18 The four offices also don't believe that the rule 19 should aff ord parties tne right to submit written pleading 20following an oral argument and should not provide a minimum 21 time for prnparation of a response.
We simply think that in l
22 a statement of considerations the Board should be advised to l
l Z3 giv e suf ficient amount of time.
24 So basically the proposal of three offices is 25 along the lines thrt I have outlined with the licensing l
l ALCEASoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
N N K@M1#FF4Lfo VEtR
57 1 board.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do any of our colleagues over 3 there on that side of the table have any additional 4 coaments ?
Iony?
5 MR. COTTER:
As I recall, my dissent is not really 6a dissent of the proposal.
It's a dissent to the 7 contingencies that I recall being associated with the 8 proposal.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Which I think have been 10 aodified.
11 MR. BICKWIT:
I don't know whether they have been 12 modified to your satisf action.
Nonetheless, if you find 13 these acceptable that's fine.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I gather you found this 15 unn ecessary but you're not objecting?
16 MR. COTTER:
That's correct.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Are there any Commission 18 questions o r comments?
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I gather there are changes i
20because Tony's memo referred, as one of the constraints l
l 21 being required, was a court reporter and the OGC's memo l
22 points out that it's not required.
So I assume that there l
23 h ad b e e n s o m e --
l l
24 3R. BICKWIT:
What our memo said is that the ASLB 25 people think this memo contains so many other constraints l
ALCERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC.
MVIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WTHINGTCN, O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4 58 1 concerning court reporter standards as to make its 2 usef ulness questionable.
I have to put to Tony whether it's 3 been modified sufficiently for you to get your support.
4 MR. COTTER:
Certainly.
You've got it.
5 3R. BICKWIT:
Okay.
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Even though you still felt 71t was unnecessary?
i 8
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But I thought his feeling 91t was unnecessary was because he believed that they did 10 have the authority and Len 's argument is his in terpreta tion 11 -- if Tony agreed that they didn't then 12 BR. BICKWIT:
I read one rule.
There is another 13 rule.
There is a rule that gives the Boards general 14 housekeepin g authority and I think your position was that 15 they could use that housekeeping authority to override the 16 rule I just read.
I don't think the housekeeping authority 171s designed to allow that.
I 18 MR. COTTER:
It may not be allowed but they sure 19 are doing it.
l l
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I find it im pressive tha t we s
21 have three legal rounsel agreeing that this is something l
l 22necessary.
23 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE4 As long as you don 't ask 24 them what help it's going to be we're in good shape.
25 (Laughter.)
ALDERSON NEDORTING COMPANY,INC.
l a.warvewwvwrt c
59 1
MR. BICKWIT:
It's not being offered as a solution 2 to the world 's problems.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It's not clear to me whether 4 this will help or hinder.
I hope it won't hinder.
5 MR. COTTER :
I think it will help.
I think it is 6 an affirmative encouragement to all the parties to settle 7 out the stuff by conference call instead of horsing around 8 with paper.
9
- 53. BICKWITs I don't think the Commission should 10 adopt it if it simply rests on the premise that it won't 11 hinder auch.
12 HR. SHAPAR:
I think we had better stop talking 13 right now.
14 (Laughter.)
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
May I ask you a question of 16 guidance and I guess I'll begin with OGC.
Would you 17 envision all the matters covered in this document to be one 18 tule ?
19 MR. BICKWIT:
I think it will depend on when we're 20 ready.
If the Commission reaches agreement on this portion l
21 of what was proposed earlier and the next portion, I would l
l 22 suggest it would go out with the final rulemaking on those 23 m at ters.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Suppose we went out and we 25 agreed on the last two items.
Would that be appropriate to ALDERSON AEPoRTING COMPANY. INC,
(
- l 60 f
?
1 send it out and when the interroga tories question gets 2 set tled there might be another package and if the other 3 items ge t, settled that would be another package?
4 MR. BICKWIT:
Agreei.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Can we touch base next on the j
6 use of express mail?
I thought by silence I had assent, but 7 I'd better not do that.
I wonder if I might have a 8 Commission vote on the section to permit the licensing board 9 to order oral responses to motions to compel discovery.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Aye.
11 COM.MISSIONER BRADFORD:
Aye.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Aye.
BT 13 COMMISSIONER R0gERS:
Aye.
4 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
So we have four votes in 15 favor.
16 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
At some point it will be 171dopted and we will ha ve to approve it anyway.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINos All right.
19 On the express mail.
20 3R. BICKWIT On that matter all four offices 21 recommend that the proposed rule be adopted which would 22 permit a Board to order the use of Express Mail and thereby 23 sho rten th e period for service.
24 Ihe four offices believe the statement of 25 considerations ought to spell out that it should be only in ALDERSCN AEPCRTING COMPANY,INC, l
l
. 63)VIMINIA Ad RW.n WM)4lN@TONm 9.@. RETA4 KRiF6) Ef-33-fF13FJ
61 1 cases where expedition is necessary and should also state 2 tha t parties who did not wish to bear the eYeenses l
3 associated with this Express Mail procedure should be 4 afforded the option of filing the document by first class Smail three days early.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Three days early?
7 MR. BICKWIT:
Tha t 's right.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What does that mean?
You've 9 got to
'n i it bef ore you write it?
10 ER. BICKWIT:
You send it before you have to send 11 1t, before you would otherwise be required to.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I see.
You're saying you 13 still want it there by the day it's due,
i 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But if it takes more tha n 16 three days, as it sometimes does, what's the consequence?
17 MR. BICKWIT:
The idea is the assumption is that i
181t wo uld take five days and th e party that is resisting th e l
19 expenditure of Express Mail would simply be asked to serve l
20 it three days before the period for service would otherwise 21 axpire.
22 COM5ISSIONER BRADFORD:
Len, your paper makes it 23 pratty clear that necessary means necessary in the case of a 24 f acility that's going to be finished prior to the completion 25 o f the operating license proceeding.
I take it tha t is the ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,lNC, L
6 AMLRC C/XMIYdV6ML @R 80R3 M %b-MM
52 1 definition you 're using?
2 MR. BICKWIT:
That was not what I intended as an 3 exclusive list of situations in which expedition was 4 necessary.
That was the classic case.
5 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE.
He says, such as.
6 MR. BICKWIT:
I'm glad I said "such as".
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, let's see.
When S else might it be necessary?
It 's always nice to save time.
9 MR. BICKWIT:
To give other examples, we discussed 10 the spent fuel pool expansion and the need to move quickly 111n that area.
I think it's hard to foresee all the i
12 circumstances in which the Commission from a public policy 13 sta ndpoint would be in a hurry.
i 14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The Commission is always 1 Sin a hurry.
We know that.
The point is, when it's 16 especially in a hurry.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Peter, I believe there are 18 cases in which I seem to remember that a Board has ordered l
19 the use of Express Mail.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
In that case, of course, 1
21 t he rule is unnecessary.
22 3R. SHAPAR:
Another example would be an amendment 23 to the eperating license with need for power and an 24 amendment f or significant hazards considera tion.
25 IOMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It's fine for me if we're l
I 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
^
63 1 prepared to say in situations where the plant will otherwise 2 stand idle you can require Express Mail.
But if the l
3 "necessa ry" is to mean anything it has got to mean more than 4 just cases where it's nice to have the hearing over sooner 5rather than later, because we always feel that way.
6 MR. ROSENTHAL4 I don't think the Boards have 7 existing power to use Express Mail.
If the Board did it I 6 think it was exceeding its authority.
If nobody objected to 91t, so be,it.
10 MR. COTTER:
I've been coming up here for the last 11 ten months kicking and cerear.ing against everything I 12 consider to be an intemperate proposal and now I have a 13 chance to agree with something or other.
-14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO We have as much trouble as 15 taking a yes answer --
16 (Laughter.)
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was just asking two 18 questions -- (a) has the Board used it and (b) do you now l
19 believe they have the authority?
l 20 MR. COITER:
I do not know whether the Board has i
21 csed it in the sense of requiring the parties to file.
22 MR. OLMSTEAD: It's been required in at least two 23 case s.
24 MR. BICKWIT:
The rule says service may be made by 25 personal delivery, by first class, certified or registered ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
L
64 1 mail, including air mail, by telegraph or as otherwise 2 authorired by law.
I read that as not including Express 3 Mail.
4 MR. ROSENTHAL:
So do I.
5 MB. SHAPAR:
So do I.
6 ME. 50SENTHAL:
That's why I think it's necessary.
7 NB. BICKWIT:
Now again there is that housekeeping 8 rule --
9 3R. ROSENTHAL:
I wts about to refer to it, I 10 don 't feel strongly one way or the other.
that could be read as overriding.
11 MR. BICKWIT:
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The other question:
how 13 would you propose it be handled in areas where Express - Mail
(
14 doe sn 't go?
15 3R. BICKWIT:
Ihat it oughtn't to be required.
16 This is a discretionary authority conferred on the Board.
I l
17 think the statement of considerations ought to say that l
18 whe re it isn 't provided it oughtn't to be required.
19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The can-rannot principle.
20 MR. ROSENTHAL:
It does seem to me tha t there 21 o ug h t to be a reasonable, tightly drawn standard here 22 b ecause Express Mail is extremely expansive and it is not 23 always easy for a party to resort to the alternative of I
l 24 mailing the particular document three days earlier than the 25 deadline.
ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
.j
65 1
As you are aware, the time limits for most actions 2 under the Commission's rules are not terribly generous and I 3 think to impose that obstacle or penalty, if you will call 41t that, of three da ys ' advance mailing to somebody who is 5 either unwilling or, I would suspect in many cases, unable 6to bear the freight, particularly when we have service 7 requirements around here that people have to serve on 8 everybody and their 34th cousins, because ve do have 9 aultiple party proceedings and I can see very readily an 10 express mail bill of 5150 or $200 on one document.
11 And, therefore, I have a lot of sympathy f or 12 Commissioner Bradf ord 's concerns over what is necessary, 13 because I think it really has to be a case of clear, dire 14 necessity defined in some way rather than simply a desire on 15 the part of the Board to get so moving.
16 MR. BICKWIT4 I think it would be very difficult 17 to define it. I think we would need some examples.
18 MR. COTTER:
To the extent it's theJe I really i
19 resen t the implication that the Boards don't have any more l
20 sense than tha t, honest to goodness.
I really think it's a 21 waste of time.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
This is permitting them to do 23 it when they feel the circumstances are right.
24 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
Nevertheless, I would share 25 Peter and Howard's view, because typically the largest i
ALDERSON REPCRT1NG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTCN. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
66 1 expense in order to afford it requires you to get it out 2 earlier, so given that one of those things arrives, usually 3 people have worked right up to the last minute to get it 4 done and the people who are least likely to be able to use 5 the Express Mail are going to be those having the hardest 6 time to get it done anyway.
7 MR. SHAPAR:
4s a general standard I would suggest 8 clearly necessary in the public interest and then give 9 exanples.
I think it's the best you're going to be able to 10 d o.
11 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Perhaps that and a 12 sentence saying this wculd not include the normal licensing 13 proceeding.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, subject to those kind 15 of thoughts may I have an expression by the Commissioners 16 with regard tt this?
17 (A chorus of ayes.)
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Now let me ask you a 9 procedural question.
We appear to be settled on two 20 points.
Do you think that would be appropriate to write up 21 as an order?
22 MR. BICKWIT:
As a rule.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And submit it for 24 consideration.
In the meantime I'm not sure who I shCuld in the meantime -- I'm going to 25 address on this one l
ALCERSCN REPORTING CCMPANY,INC, l
-, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
67 1 address it to Tony Cotter; if I'm wrong he'll tell me and so 2 will the others -
prepare an order with regard to 3 interrogatories along the lines that I identi.fied earlier 4 where we asked the Board to take control of the 5 interrogatories and get the certification question and 8 include the statement or statements as options with regard 7 to the question of probing the thought process and laying on 8 work on the staff.
9 But I would expect you to work and solicit the to help of the appropriate people.
11 MR. COTIER:
I will -- reluctantly, but I will.
12 (Laughter.)
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What's that?
14 MR. COTTER:
I'm sorry.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
And bring that back to us as 16 1 proposed rule and you bring the other two back as a 17 proposed rule.
And the other item that we were discussing I 18 guess we have another week on.
Okay.
19 Any other comments or questions?
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD.
Just one small cloud on 21 the horizon.
Tony has clarified a misunderstanding tha t I 22had with regard to his proposal on interrogatories.
23 Unfortunately he clarified it against what I thought was the 24 better way to go.
I thought for the Board to get involved 251n reading all the interrogatories and reviewing them was ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
._. __ _exturwwwvtar4_ avvt. vvveverset e e srritM <srsa mssvc
68 1 going to take some sort of motion from the parties 2 indica ting a feeling that this was burdensome, and it still 3 seems to me to be a good idea.
4 It doesn't make sense to me to have the Boards 5 reading these things rcutin ely and throwing them out on the 6 basis of their own impulses, even in cases where the party 7 was f ully prepared to comply.
8 So while I'm still comfortable with leaving it to 9 the substantial discretion of the Board, I would like to 10 have some indication that a party objected to an 11 interrogatory before I would want the Board pitching it 12 o ut.
We don 't need to thrash that out today, but I had 13 thought that it was still part of the process and apparently 14 1t is not.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If th ere 's a willingness --
16 suppose there is a willingness on the part of the staff to 17 answer the question.
Would the Board still throw it out 18 under your proposal?
19 ER. COTTERS I think as a practical matter you are 20 addressing a theoretical possibility, if you will.
As a 21 practical ma tter the Boards are not going to have time to 22 sit down and examine every interrocatory that comes in and 23 mak e decisions about them.
And that's one of the th3ngs 24 that I have tried to avoid all the way through this because 25 the y would have to do that if there was a specific numerical ALDERSON REPORT 1NG CCMPANY,INC,
69 111mitation on interrogatories.
2 But it leaves them the ability when they see a 3 situation developing to act affirmatively without having to 4 have a request for relief from one of the parties.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You understand my concern is 6 I don't see how they could ever validly see a situation 7 developing unless they had some indication from one of the 8 parties th a t they were beginning to feel burdened by the 9 discovery proceus.
10 HR. SHAPAR:
They're served, are they not, Tony?
11 Copies are sent to the Board.
I guess they wouldn't read 12 them carefully but they would be aware of what's going on 13 and also I guess I'd say if you are going to use the analog 14 of the Federal courts I wouldn't tinker too much with it 15 since it 's been thrashed out after many months of debate 16 bef ore this proposal was picked up.
17 MR. COTTER 4 I can think of at least two 18 situa tions of f the top of my head where the Boards would l
19 have acted affirmatively had they had the authority.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFOR0s But not without some sort i
21 of motion f rom the parties.
22 MR. COTTER:
Without a motion.
l 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What situations are those?
24 MR. COTTER:
Well, they're active cases.
I don't 25 think it would be appropriate for me to say.
I ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
70 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
If I were on a Board and I 2 saw questions go back and f orth how would I know which ones 3 to throw out and which not to throw out unless somebody came 4in and complained and said, my God, you're really burdening 5 us with all these questions.
All I need is one.
6 MR. COTTER:
It's my-legal training.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I don't find that satisfying, 8 but I had said only one, so I'd better not ask for another.
9 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Tony, several times to questions about active cases have come up and Len keeps 11 telling us that we can in fact hear it.
12 MR. BICKWIT:
You can hear it.
I didn't say you 13 could wrestle blood out of a stone.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I must say I offhand can't 15 think of cases where I would want the Boards coming in 16 without hearing from the parties at all and I /in't mind how 17 you disguise the activeness of the case.
I wouldn't give 18 the initials of the generating station if I could help it.
19 MR. COTTER:
The particular one I was thinking of 20 was not an operating license or operating reactor.
21 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But why would the Board 22 disallow an interrogatory, say, without hearing from the 23 party that it was burdensome?
24
- 53. COTTER:
You all are focusing on specifically 25 disallowing an interrogatory and I am focusing on the ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC.
OKilW@M00 AWm @.E WMD0060BT@G0m @#. fMR3 GWb) 02M6KE.
)
)
71 1 parties -- the Boards bringing the parties in and saying sit 2 down and stop this nonsense with all the changed 3 in terrogatories going back and forth and start disclosing 4what it is you want and focusing on the issues and managing 5 this exchange of inf ormation which has become begged down in 6 the formalities of writing out questions and writing out 7 answers.
8 COEMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That makes sense.
It's a 9 different -- it is a different kind of action, though, from 10 actually ruling against a proposal by one of the parties.
11 It seems to me we've gone f ar enough.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think it also sets further 13 criterion on which decision would be made which I found very 14 valuable, but that may be because I don't have that legal 15 training.
16 Okay, any other points?
17 Well, thank you very much and the mee ting will 18 stand adjourned.
19 (Whereupon, at 3:50 o' clock p.m.,
the meeting was 20adnourned.)
21 M
l l
24 25 l
l l
ALDERSCN REPCRTING COMPANY,lNC, L
tEiGDRIO QMLf1&LJZgfarril2bHL fBLM.
NUC:.ZAR REGU MTORY CO!dMISSICN This is 50 certify tha: :he attachec. ;: Oceecings ' efers the
) -
CO!2IISSION MEETIEG 4
-w,
....2.- w.
Discussion and Possible Vote on Rev1 sc
- cansing Procedures -- Procosed Rule Change to Part 2 -
PUBLIC MEETING
- Cate df Proceecing: October 13, 1981 Uccket Nu:::ber:-
FI. ace: Of Fr0cee<ii.g:
Washingto11, D. C.
4cre-held as herein a;;;: ears and. Cha; thi.s is the Oristral transcM.;:is
- herse f fer Oh- " ' = cf the C = issi,0 =.,
Ann Riley Cf fic.ial. Iecerrar (Typ e<i)
D Ojj)
_ ~_
Of ficial ?.e;:cc e.-
( 31gratu: e)
,)
((
ll((l
(({(ll 1 { ( '(
l(l li(((ll (
ll( l( f
'(ll((((((
c:sd d
TRANSMITTAL TO:
Document Control Desk,
~=d 016 Phillips P
2
=
ADVANCED COPY TO:
O The Public Document Room
- p52 g
DATE:
October 15, 1981
@=
5;=
Attached are the PDR copies of a Commission meeting g
transcript /s/ and related meeting document /s/.
They p
are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession F
List and placement in the Public Document Room.
No b@
other distribution is requested or required.
Existing DCS identification nun bees are listed on the individual c
documents wherever possible.
FiP P
1.
Transcrip; of:
Discussion and Possible Vote on Revised Licensing Procedures -- Proposed Rule Change to Part 2.
Oct.
- 13. 81, (1 copy) a.
Memo dated 10/9/81 from P. Cotter to the Commissioners, Subj:
Proposed Changes to 10 CFR Part 2:
Management of Discovery.
(1 copy)
N 'f jake r
r O
of the Secretary 5
S=$
E==
gf-< i &
p[;= -
'K I".
9 r-c 00T181981J
'A r
z m.a.g_== nam 3 4
e to e5 4