ML20037D080
| ML20037D080 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/12/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20037D081 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-81-111B, NUDOCS 8105210446 | |
| Download: ML20037D080 (62) | |
Text
.
W'U RIuwJTORY COM:!d.255:0N r
I h
h ti:a Mr.t::s c:f:
CCMMISSION MEETING DISCUSSION OF REVISED LICENSING PROCIDURES
(
~
CACI:
May 12, 1981
? AGES:
1 thru 58
,c:.
Washington, D. C.
i 1
1 l
l l
l 1
.LLDER$0X REPORTUG
- f. Q 40 0 71:7 r.is. Ave., 5.3
'42*-
s==,
- 2. C.
100 4 Ta1.4phnra : (2001 554-0245 l
8105210fl/[r4 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS l
POOR QUAUTY PAGES
AN 1
1 I
i 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
+++
\\
4 DISCUSSION OF REVISED LICENSING PROCEDURES 5,
+++
e 3
i n
j 6'
Nuclear Regulatory Commission g
Room 1130, 1717 E St., N.W.
R 7 !
Washington, D. C.
A
]
8' Tuesday, May 12, 19o1 0
=
9; The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.
m.,
z 10 JCSEPH'M. HENDRIE, Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
E=
1 g
11 l SEFORE:
D
'i 12 ;
JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman of the Cc mission z=
S 13 '
VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner E
E 14 PETER A. BRADFORD, Cc=missioner a
b
_i 15 '
JOHN F. AHEARNE, Cc=missioner w
E l
?
16 ALSO PRESENT:
3 4
2 y
17 LEONARD SICKWIT, General Counsel a=
18 SAMUEL J.
CHILK, Secretary C
19 WILLIAM J. DIRCKS XM 20 HOWARD SHA?AR l
21 '
ALAN S. RCSENTHAL 1
22 WILLI AM J. OLMSTEAD 1
l l
23 TONY P. CCTTER 24 MARTIN MALSCH
{,
1
- ++
l 25 l
i Al nFRCiON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
73 1 sm, "is is a= =cff' ' = '
=2=s--d ;
cd a. =se '=g cd -Aa ~=1:ad.
Sca=as 3
' a=- Zag:La==7 C
' esic: haid := May 12, 1981 i=.-ha C-
' si.='s off1=se a= 172.7 E 5:=sec, 3. ~4., 74sh" =g==,
- 3. C.
"a -==-d
! us eye =.= pr.hli=. a=-d e--- a:d ecserra=1c..
. "is. =z=s4: has== bes= :setered, cm =ad,
= dd-=6 a=i L: =E7 ""'~' ' ' * -' -
" ^ *.
- a =z=ac=1,.= 1s i=- J a scla 17 "c= g - = * ' 1=fc==a=1~ = ?
- ta=;cses.
A.s f.. < M by 10 CII. 9.102, i= is _c pa== cd :he
":==a." c= d '==a.' =scs=i ed d
' *t ~ cf ha =a=s:s '.isc=ssed.
Z=p
==*d ~__? cd epd d--
i=.
'd+ =x=sQ: d= =c
=acassa=117 radiac fi=a.L da- =-- d -* d :.s== b = ' ' a '*.
Ye ;'==dd-+ := cela:
paper =a7 be.""' d ad-'- -le C-
' *s1= '.= a=7 ;=candi=g as ha.
=uscL= cf c add:assed.= a=7 s z a====== a.e c==-'d-s ha=a1=, cc=se: as ' e. C
' **' =, =zy a-- '- - - =.
e 6
l l
\\
l l
e 1
b i
1 l
i wa
f 8
2 1
PR0CEEDINGS i
l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The Commissien will come to order.
2 3,
We meet to centinue our discussions on revised 4'
licensing procedure matters.
What we are about this afternoon is 5
to see whether we can make sc=e more headway with regard to
=
a 1
n 3
6 Part 2 rule changes and with regard to a licensing policy state-e
-n R
7 Cent.
i N
i 8
Now, last time I asked for a schedule, a pair of i
O I
d d
9 schedules.
I see that has been submitted.
We will talk about i
E 10 4
that in a minute.
E_
5 11,
Cn the policy statement we ccme reasonably close, but d
12,
are concentrating en or are new dealing with Section III A cn z=
5 13 ; time.
That, in turn, connects to the Part 2 rule changes.
.=
E 14 '
On the Part 2 rule changes, somewhere I have a matrix w
6 z
2 15 which reveals the progress.
I think we now have got agreement a=
2 through 6.
And
?
16 cc items 1 through 6 or sc=ething like that
- M F
17 item I had to do with taking the staff off the hock for aa 18 discovery, and we are locking at alternatives which would help E
19 the timeliness of the process.
5 n
20 l I also see we have a pair of recent entries in the 21 memorandum.
I think, Tony, you have won this afterncen's pride 22 '
of place for the last memoranda submitted before the meeting.
I I
23 MR. CCTTER:
It was purely fortuitous.
24 CHAIRMAN EENDRIE:
In fact, ycu have wen first place and; i
25 second place, which is notewcrthy, i ;
I Al nFACAN AFAM ATING COMP ANY. INC.
3 1,
'4hy don' t you tell us what is in these two =e=oranda.
1 2,
They clearly lead to these questions about limiting the nu=ber of l
3i interrogatories and how you try to help move these proceedings 4l into the hearing phase.
And then we can talk about the e
5 schedules and whatever members of the Commission vant to talk 7
H 8
6 about and see how we stand.
a R
3, y;
MR. COTTER:
The memo titled "The Panel Response to Limiting the Number of Interrogatories Filed" has at: ached to it 8l n
d
- i 9i a su==ary of the response of 25 members of the panel to the z,.
E 10 original questionnaire, which was circulated before the later i
1 5
11,
revision.
<3
- i 12,
The results of the poll are somewhat summari::ed in the z
=
' memorandum, but basically there was substantial divergence.
I d
13
-=
E 14
'4hile the panel favors the control and manage =ent of discovery, u
I 15 you get different views en precisely how it should be accc=plished, G
=
16 CO:C4ISSIONER AHEA? LIE:
But at least to the extent that 3
- d ti 17 you took the poll, on those questions they would seem to be G=
5 18 fairly much in agreement.
=
l 19 MR. COTTER:
Yes.
Excep: to the extent that you have x
- 5 4
20 got -- well, this is a mix of part time and full time =e=bers l
21 -
who were present at the particular session.
22 '
CCfC4ISSIONER AEEARNE:
Yes.
I a= not saying hcw you 23 weight the poll, but at least in your poll.
I t
24 MR. CCTTER:
No.
Everyone is in favor of =anage=ent i
e l
25 of discovery and the question is the =ethed.
The concern that I l
?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4 1
see highlighted here is that if you pick out interrogatories as 2
ene of the discovery devices and inpcse limitations on that, are 3
you going to create a bulge in another area, such r the use of t
4 depositions, to replace what information you could othe.' vise I
5 o b. a n.w.,o t.,3.. -..
o3,-
.s.
-w 4
n M
6 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I thought the theory was that E
7 pecple wouldn't have enough =cney to use that.
,~
M i
8 MR. CCTTER:
Well, that is one of the prcble=s.
If that a
d d
9, is the result, then that =eans the be::er financed parties wculd i
10 have er could have better access Oc discovery by use of z=
m 11 depositions.
D d
12 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, t;.ey obviously would.
z=
i
-:i 13 MR. COTTER:
We can cnly speculate at this point en
=u J3
.w
=
14
...a w.
a b
5 15
- a c ". a..- ac.-e.-..s
".a-s=w *.. '
wa-a -ka-
- ..s-
~.~
usx 16
' e T ~'- "~ a -
^#
" '
- c a =~ d ' s ~' s
-~~-=-'a
-ka a
-'~a
^*"'**~~~~-~s cva-
--- ~
~~ **
~~ * * * ~ ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~
dd 0
..e-o.
.a..
a..c...
.-.,,,.a.
c.e
..c
..s p.a,. a e a
,.s
..-,.s.
e.-
n
- u..
17 3
..s-.
-a a.x=
S r. a. " i a ~ =. W ' "..
I, 18 2 w -'*na'
=..--s=--.-.s, a..d 7
".. '.k.
- u C a.
-*a
/
a
- c
=
1 a
i I
19
- ertainty tha: there will be those kinds of requests.
X e
[
5 l
20 A. w. --
css
,. co s.,.2e c.,
c 21 speculative level, is whether, if the interrogatories are =cre 22 c a.- a..' ".'.'.-.. ar.e d w h.a... '.'..*. a. d,
".. a. - w.'.'.' ~.. 3 "-. -a.
a..
- a. r " a.'
w "-...
g w
l I
I
..v-
- 2.., o. r' - 7 7 i
23
.* 3 g.c e wv--g -
2..3y..
a, - e-s.,
..eg-s.-.3 4
x i
w.#
-h..=.
I 24
.-,.u, w.k.. ~.. ".. ~. 2.-.
4
.w b
t l
I
-,,. 3,.,......
.a 3..-
- s....a.
.=...a.
.m....,
-..-..g,
-w ww..
w.
, o I
y 1
i ALDERSON RE.DORTING COMPANY. INC.
-p 1
in the rulings of the boards on whether or not additional r
2 interrogatories are required.
3 I saw three possible alternative courses of action for
/
4 the Commission to ta,ce.
One is the one proposed, to limit e
5 interrogatories over the entire proceeding.
A second, and one f'3n 3
6 that I end up cbviously favoring, is to phrase any interrogatory a
en R
7; limitatien in terms of guidance in the policy statement, in i
i w
M i
5 8;
Section D cf it.
a d
9
- m. w..,. - g.4.-s oss b*-],
w "._* *. "
- s s ~a ~ a w.".e.= =.
"a.. w a. a...."..a.
a y
.z
-c 10
.'-.s-wo, wou--
a.
o '-* *
"..a..a.u.c a.-
'~
'd
-=-
- a
-... a. - - - e - o = -. s ~.. a -
2.
i 11 '
could be filed after the SSER was filed.
And it seems Oc ne 5<3
'i 12 that z=
COMMIco-Ch-a. A.._Ar_.N_ :
rer cS R?
13 c
==
E 14 M".. CCTTER:
I would say so, yes.
a h
i li 15 CCMMISSIONER AHEA.:NE: So, what you would really be
-a E
- 4...,.- n _,., - <, s, a..,. s ~e a.c.e d n., c,. _ a....
- n..
- a. n.s a.. 3-
< a.
..s.,... t.~u,
c.e 3
3
- ri 17 v2.. CCT.O. T_
T.k.a
's
..".e ki..d ^' - u a. s. *..n *. ". a, o. -y a -
s
,,W X
- %. a.
yg.1 n a.
e.r
- a. $ *. g k. 2 _4_ $ "..<.* 6 e -- - s
- 0 a*-0A
- %. a
-04A e
"o 18 4.A,
- g a.e. =. a-gew
~.-
y w.
w i
=w I
19 boards, and le: thes adap: the remedy to fit the situation.
'4he r.
xa 20 ycu are making an across the board rule, it see=s to me very I
i l
21 diicult in
- his area, because there are sc ca.y variations 22 frc= cn case to another.
t C..A _, 6,,,
- .._h,D ___ :
- assure i wou_d b e the. as
- n.
c n.
n l
23 I
l l
24
- a....... x,- - c. - - a X _~n. w..... s.- e,.. s..
s._..,
.m.
_a.
. w..
...w.s r.--.-.-
t 25 i " a-d -"=- *-
- - = = - - " ---d"-a -"a '==- ^' - " - * =-
--=- - -
r--
- * - e=-
a-i*
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
6 1
documents which will be forthcoming before the staff is ready to 2'
go to hearing, you knew, could have a large a= cunt of discovery 3
go en in connection with it.
That is a burden on the staff 4
resources, to be sure, but probably has very little to do with e
5 the timing that we are trying to focus en here, which is, after
,n i
n 8
6<
the staff, in fact, gets all cf its stuff published, you know, e
eng 7i can we please expediticusly get into the hearing and through it N
3 8'
and get the initial decision written.
n d
z.
9, So, I would think ' that car interest here would tend to
=
10
=ake it the last one.
And if the staff informed the board, for E
5 11 instance, tha: they were going to file two -- you knew, ene en l
<3 4
12 !
Thursday and one en Friday, and these were to be the final enes,
z=
i E
13 why, I guess the board would have to decide whether that
==
E 14 entit.es people to 100 cr to 50 for the pair of them.
4 a
6=
'*MMa. S.0N n-A. AR.s._c:
v us t as a question cut ef, I c 2 15,
_w=
16 guess, curiosity, the staff =any times has said -- or =aybe no:
3 A
i 17 many times -- several times I can recall tha: they have said that a=
\\
18 <
the reason they were delayed in ge :ing cut a particular dccumen
=u
(
I 19 :
was their answering a lot of questiens.
I E
R 20,
So, I guess what you are saying is that if the SSER, 21 though, is not the last one, the a: cunt of effer: that might b e 22 required to answer questions en that one shculdn't, in any
---5"as="-*a--"S-
-"a
-a' 23 s '- *-- - ' ' ' a o - w$7> - r*da -"a*"
- " ^ -
l'
- 2 j
24 i
4 C3AIAMAN EINU31E
'#*11' OU* *0'1d UCE* 20"O i3 O#"*
IU 25 1
Al nFR90N RFPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
7 1
principle.
In practice, it isn't necessarily true, i
2 CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is it always clear which is the 3
last SSER?
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Oh, I think the sta'f cught to be o,
5 able to in'crm the board, you knew, as you cc=e down Ocward that Ma 3
6:
stage.
en R
7; COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
They can say this is the last ene 4
a j
8 and you only get 50, and say well, we made a mistake, but dg 9
n vercheless this new cne is the last ene.
I think you are right.
i g:;
}Q CU..A.?2.% jay.
U. T."tg n.?T.
..w.4 g
w./. g.
4 g o c 3.4
- 4 e.
=.v
?
a w...
y u
i a -ha ' c a~-d w""e1 -"e1 w'
"a a"~'= ~~^ waa-
-"*- s "e a
11
~~~"s
~
--r
~
1 3
Ca vv..?c S t05.C. 2 a.".;.a.= sie.,
r.e.w..
.c
.c 12,
w n.
. ~....
Z
-"---~~s-c-- s> - s"*ss
- Wou'd- " ave
- "'9 2
- "*"a==^-=**
7
~~~- s ~~- "uCbe c#
.-4.-
"^a
=
13,
.34
=
=
c..,
-"a~ ~"a- 'aG*c ^""s"-
aer'1-a4-"a-e-do u=a -
~~
-a-x 14 1
-"- ~~
v--
-~
~ -
---"-~ r a
t:
I 15 case, and I don't see a logic per las: One issued.
-xx 16
.sq-. 2 rcr.. gem.
g.3,
. ". a. ' -,- * ~ w u ' d be."a "a-
'a-w"a.
n 3
- d ic va -"' - s o s a xc a d ' * * * "s ' --l
- - " * - 1.- - " a a
- -~~'--
17 1.cu a-a
--J-'s
~ -
~-
--s W
18 arguments en the 0 her side, hcwever, are =cre persuasive, which
=w
- s ra -~~"'=-
- * - y -" s~~ *--
c "a'P s'a " w'-"
=-
l 19 a~a -" a - ' ' s c " a-a
-a a"-
i-r- - -- >
i
=
n
"-- -- - - - ssava-- 's de
-"a
=ascu c= r-~*'~a--~ w h a-" a - '""a 20 you "ava s--
--J
-~
C a '
a- -"e
- 4 "-'-" -
^ "- d a's
-""a-a-- w---
a a-21 "a'c-a i
- c'-- -- *"> -- Jcu are-/' -"a
' a-'ar' *
'J-cres-CAT:
'a
'-a-*-
22 h
t
-w..
- =- -
-w.
..a
..a a.r s-i
.....---2---4 3>
3
-- e-
'--J 23
's-------
l y
t-
- a 'a J
\\'.
a
~'
-w.
w..,,-
.w.
3,_4 a *--
"-J v
'--~s
-"- ~~"---- "- -"- -- '- -
24 I
a evaluacien in the las: SSER.
25 A l I"lE"QCOM G C:" A AGTIN('; FAM A A NY INF
8 O
8 1,
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How does the number of 50 2'
interrogatories after the last SSER compare with the number that 3
are asked now?.
4' MR. COTTER:
I can't answer that.
Maybe Ecward or Bill
.f e,
5 can.
nNj 6,
MR. SHAPAR:
I think we said before, the interrogatories R
R.
7 were running about.100 per case and have reached 200.
A i
j 8 !
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But this is only one stage of dd 9.
the case.
i.
10 MR. SHAFAR:
You mean after the SSER?
z 11 ;
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yes.
5<
3
- i 12 '
MR. SHAPAR:
I guess the last ---
z=
i 5
13,
MR. OLMSTEAD:
We had 212 there, and we had over 100
,=
E 14 i just on the icw power and we will get more en the full power in a.
L
-z 9
15 Diab lo.
i:1
=
16 MR. COTTER:
Those two are not typical, though, are
.3 as F
17 th..ey?
g w
18 MR. OLMSTEAD:
No.
I don't knew what typical is.
The
=
6.
I 19 cases that are i=pacted are all heavily centested cases.
We have
=
n 20 cases coming dcwnstream in the next fiscal year that are going to
~
21 be much worse.
22 MR. COTTER:
For example, did ycu get anything like that 23 in McGuire?
24 MR. OLMSTEAD:
' fell, we had interrogatcries in McGuire, !
46l-25 but I can't tell ycu how many.
We had a settlemen: :n the icw l,
Al nFRSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
9 i
I 1'
power in McGuire, so you didn' t have interrogatories in that 2,
situation.
I 3;
MR. SHAPAR:
I am assuming Diablo and San Onofre '.'
4 are typical of the other i=pacted cases, or close enough for i
I e,
5 calculation.
9 8
6l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
John, you would be willing to have e
N 2
7, a limit on interrogatories either per document or per case?
N i
i 8
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That is where the logic would N
d 9
lead me.
i.
E 10,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, that is a staff resource E=
5 11 logic.
<m d
12 >
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No.
If there is a reason for z
=
d 13 l limiting interrogatories and saying that the process =akas =cre
=
E 14 l sense, that you are able to require those who are asking w
hh 2
15 cuestions to more focus their questiens, either of those fit.
w z
16 The part of the logic that I feel very uneasy with is, new that 32 y
17 the staff has got its document out, new we are going to rush and a=
i 18 get into the hearing.
That wasn't the reason I was interested
=u I
19 in 11=iting it.
Raising the threshold of contentiens er putting X
\\
n 20,
cn interrogatories is to try to make them what 7 think a '* **
21 l 1s a = ore rational, well held together progess.
i 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, understeed.
Vic, what is ycur i
i 23 inclina:icn here, withcut this constituting, you knew, sc=e scr I
6 I
24 of vote for or against rule changes or anything else?
What is j,
L I
25 your feeling?
i ;
_}
l i
1 i
Al nFGCAN AFDORTIN(; FAM A ANY INF L
10 I;
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is the order that we are 1
2 taking these things up?
Do you want to do this before you do the 3
policy statement?
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, it goes together in the e
5 following way:
The policy statem9nt is essentially agreed to.
We d
3 6:
have essentially agreed to language, but there remains a yl a
question, what we want to say in the policy statement with regard 3
I N
f 8
to time and then the related matter here, management of i
a
\\
d i
n 9,
discovery.
Y 10,
We could just say, you know, boards are expected to z
move expeditiously.
My hope was that we could, in that time 5
11 B
4 d
12 ;
section, provide a sort of prototype schedule with recognition z=
i i
2 13 that it was not a =andated schedule and the boards could lengthen am E
14 or shorten as they had to to meet the needs of a particular case.
s D!
15 In trying to see what such a prototype schedule might u=
16 '
look like, there was one, you remember, which the ad hoc group 3
A 6
17 got up, tr.d it ran sight months total, but it had the cheery a=
18 l oroscect in it that the staff issues its last dccument and then E
19 25 days later all the discovery related to that is completed and
=
l M
i l
20 people have been able to file revised contentiens, new i
l 21 cententions and so on, and I think there is general agreement t
22 that that just isn't going to happen.
So, there is no point in i
23 publishing that schedule.
And what we have icoked a: is, then, l
24 well, the 25 days j ust isn't i.9 the real world, what would 1: taket s
25 to put it in the real world.
And one answer seems to be, cut Off 1
r Al nFRSON RFPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
11 1l all discovery or at least relieve the staff of a requirement to l
2i respond to discovery at that stage.
3 I ithink the Ccmmission has not agreed to go with that 4<
proposed rule change.
The next question is, well, what sort of e
5 guidance or other proposition might we be able to agree on.
It An 3
6 might turn out to be simply a general discussion and guidance for a
R a
7i boards to =anage discovery and the business of getting into l
Mj 8,
hearing as effectively as they can.
Or it conceivably could d
=
9 include things like limiting interrogatories at scme point.
10 COMMISSICNER GILINSKY:
Well, that would be a rule z
5 11 l change, wouldn't it, unless you just put it out as a guide?
3 J
12 l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
You could sort of do it either z=
\\
S 13, way, I suspect.
The obvious sort of straightforward way would be
.=
i E
14 l to make it as a rule change.
I think if we went that way, it.is a
b!
is ; prebably different enough from the items we had asked coc=ent on x=
16 before in Part 2, for Part 2 changes, so that we would need 3
A F
17 another ro und o f cc==ent.
aW=
18 MR. SICKWIT:
I would say that is true if those t
19 shielded from interrogatories by the new rule included those X
I a
20 other than the staff.
21 l
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
B ut you think if it were just the i
1 i
22 staff, why, then you wouldn't need to go Out.
23 MR. SICKWIT:
3ecause it is less restrictive, yes, than 24 what was Originally proposed.
3, 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
i e
I J
Al r9eccAM carencTINr:: enMc ANv INr
4 12 1
MR. SEAPAR:
Except that this is a procedural rule, and r
\\
2i there is an exemption for nny requirement for proposed co==ent or 31 proposal on procedural rules.
4l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I think that is right.
I think e
5 the real question is whether one' wants to go another round of X
d n
8 6'
co==ent just to find out what the world would have to say, because e
r M
I g
71 while it is less severe, it is also different in kind from what 1
N 8
8l we proposed to do before.
a d
i d
9, CHAIRMAN HENDRII:
Yes.
You knew, we weren't
.z E
10 suggesting anything like this, so people didn't co==ent that I z_
l 5
11 knew ab out.
d 12 Sut the other way would be, the other possible way would z
=
(
p 13 be to not make it a rule change, but to discuss that a board might
=.
E 14 '
in sc=e circumstances want to, as part of their manage =ent of
- s h
E 15 l
discovery, try to limit interrogatories.
ans l
=
16 New, can they de that without a rule change?
Is tha:
3 l
^
jy within the pcwer of a board?
d
- s I
=
l
$i 18 :
MR. SICKWIT:
Yes.
They can use the standard in the l
E 19 rules so as to bring about that kind of result.
Xn 20 i MR. SHAPAR:
I think there is a questien about that.
If 21 you have get a standard in the rule and the clear i= plication cf 22 the rule new is if you =eet the standard you can get your i
23 disecvery, it is not clear to me that by putting out guidance ycu l i
I t
24 are going :: cverec=e what the rule new says, j.
l 25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I think that is prob ably righ. ! -
l I
t l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
t
13 1
If somebody had 100 questions and the board felt they all met the k
2<
standard, then I think the board might have rome trouble in findin g 3
a basis for limiting it.
4 I think what Len is saying is is that the threshold is 5,
sert of a gray area and if you work toward the higher edge of the e
2 i
?
3 6 !
gray area, why ---
e R
i 8,
7,.
MR. BICKWIT:
The kind of threshold we have been talkf r.g ce i
8; about is pretty similar to what is already in the rule.
I,just I
9 think the practical applicatien of it wculd be different if you z
5 10 ;
had a limitation.'
z_
i 11 MR. SMAPAR:
It may come cut all right as a practical
<a 4
12
=at t e r, b ut it may engender a lot of legal argument.
z
=
13 i MR. COTTER:
That may b e, b ut it seems to me the boards'
-=
E 14 have the right to manage their hearings in whatever way that best a.
i e
9 15 promotes the interest or the ;)urpose of the hearing.
Sc, I would a=
16 disagree with your==~ar statement.
A i
17 MR. SHA?AR:
But if the Cc==1ssien has prc=ulgated a l
s x
t
=
5 18 specific rule that says this is hcw discovery is going to be E
19 conducted, and then the Ccmmission ccmes along with policy X5 20 advice saying, but use your discretion and do it in such a way, t
21, you obviously have got legal arguments on the part of people that 22 say the standard for discovery has been met and they want their i
23 discovery.
I I
24 Sc, the cleanest way of handling it, ob vio us ly, is, if j
it 25 there is this pctential conflict, :c de it by rule.
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
s 14 1;
MR. BICK'4IT:
I agree, that is the cleanest way to i
I 2'
handle it.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don't know whether that explanation i
4 and discussion helped or hindered, but let me go back and see if e,
5 I can sample along the table and see where the: sentiment seems to nn 3
6' lie, rather than just ramble on endlessly here.
a R
R 7 I
'4 hat do you th' ink, Vic?
Or would you like to hear I
n l
8l something about the schedule matters?
d
- i 9'
CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I guess I wouldn't have tied it i
h 10 so closely to the policy statement, because it really -- well, z
=
particularly if we are talking about a rule change.
E 11 '
<m d
12 ;
Let me ask you, Tony, what would be the number that z=
i j
13 !
you would think reascnable if one would limit interrogatories for
=
i E
14 l the whole proceeding?
Have you thougnt ab out that?
a+
E 15,
MR. COTTER:
Picking a number off the top of my head, u
I
=
?
16 ' you knew, it depends en the proceeding, how many issues there are 3
- d d
17 in it, how many cententions.
Let =e illustrate that.
?!
E 18 refer here to three cicsed operating license cases.
I E
i E
19 In those three closed cases cne had 16 contentiens, one had 25, Xa 20 l and one had 193 Ncw, what is a prcper number of interrogatories?
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
' dell, what we are talking about I
22 is not a limit really.
'de are talking ab out a number above which l
23 it gets stickier to get interrogatories approved.
Sc, it is I
24 really that scrt of a prepcsition.
You don't think we cught to d
25,
think abcut it that way?
b e
na ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4 4
8 s e>
1:
MR. COTTER:
Well, I have great difficulty thinking i
~
2i about.it that way because of the range of issues that might l
3, warrant discovery.
If you can say that there is an average of 4
20 issues in a proceeding that warrant-discovery that the parties g
5 would have to explore, then you could set some meaningful number.
n" j
6 But where there is this enormous range of questions in a
,e R
7l particular proceeding ---
i I
M 3
8i COMMISSIC'!ER GILINSKY:
So, that is the point you have n
d i
d 9
the board set the number if they handled it as a matter of E
10 discretion.
E_
E 11 ;
MR. COTTER:
Yes.
<3 d
12 '
MR. SEAPAR:
Of course, the courts have the same z=
i i
13
.croblem, all different kinds of cases.
You re' call when we took
==
E 14 our survey, it ranged from 20 to 50, again with the opportunity of x
6k 2
15 expanding it for good cause.
So, cbvicusly it is possible to set x=
i 16 a number, realizing that if you meet a certain threshold you can 3m i
17 increase it.
x=
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And hcw often do' they expand it,,
=
w I
19 do you know?
l x
n 20 MR. SHAPAR:
No.
21,
MR. COTTER:
I don't think tco often, because these are i
22 all rule quirks that you are talking about.
23 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Ch, they are net all rule quirks.
Iwan:l l
1 24
- o Ocnment en this, b ecause lawyers ge extre=ely defensive abcut j I'
25 discovery, and I think unjustifiably.
I l.
i Al nFAC AN AFPG ATING FOMP ANY. INC.
. ~
4 4
, D' 1
If discovery were producing a lot, interrogatory i
2' discovery as opposed to deposition discovery., you would have a i
3l different kettle of fish.
But essentially discovery produces 4
three things.
It preduces documents, it produces the names of 5'
witnesses, and it produces the general Lubject matter that you e,
nn I
3 6
intend to go to trial on.
a k
7l Now, if anything thinks it produces much beyond that, I
I n
nc matter how many questions you are asked, they haven't locked 8
8!
n d
g-9 at much discovery.
.z 10 COMMISSIONIR 3RADFORD:
You are talking now abcut z_
5 11 interrogatories and not depositions?
2 3
4 12 )
MR. OLMSTEAD:
Right.
Not depositienc.
Just z
_=
s 13,
interrogatories.
=
E 14 '
So, the idea of a limit is, nc =atter hcw =any awu 5_
15 contentions you have, it is easy to ask how many document are x=
l 16 you going to rely en, what are the names of the witnesses ycu are 3
p 17 going to rely on, and what subjects dc they intend to testify a
b 18 ab cut.
Cne dcesn't have to cut and paste 100 standard
=a I
19 ' interrogatories that goes on for a page and a half about the Xa 20 ' definition of what a =emorandum is to ask these kinds of 21 questions.
l 22 B ut lawyers are traditionally defensive abcut this l
1 1
.i i
i whole prccess, and as you saw frc a numb er o f 2 - ' a ' a s yo u have l
23 i
s 1
l
'*- ^' ^^
-""**===7
~"a a" =tcu~
t
-"="a~"-~- ~* a "aod
-~cu-24
,s
- --- '~ ~~"~ - -- -
I'
- l.
t I
23 it.
But I frankly don't think that our interrogatcry disccvery 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
I L
i 17 i
I 1i is where most parties get their information about technical
~
2 details.
If it was, cross-examination wouldn' t ' go on for three 3l and four days once we got to the hearing, because they wouldn't 4
need it.
And what parties are doing is substituting for 5,
depositions oy going into great lengthy cross-examination at the e
-n N
8 6
hearings, and it is not getting cut off.
It is being allowed.
e ea g
7 So, what we are talking about nere is a significant N5 8
reduction in staff resources to respond to questions because we i
M dg 9
are requiring the questions to be phrased succinctly to the z
h 10 pa.rticular case, and putting a limit en 10.
z i
5 11 Now, there are arguments opposed to that, and I hear
<3
'i 12 them all going on.
But I think it is important enough that the z=
h 13 reason it works.in the courts is because they recognize that that
=
E 14 is what they are going after, the names of the witnesses, the w
15 '
documents they are relying on, and the subject matter of the w
16 ;
testimony.
3 A
i 17 C0!OESSIONER 3RADFORD:
But if that were 2.11 that the a
E 18 staff were, in fact, yielding up, then interrcgatories wouldn't be E
19 such a resource problem, either.
=
M 20 MR. OLMSTEAD:
That is'right.
But what happens with 21 ; these long interrogatories is that you get into questions asked 22 different ways and the staff spends a lot of time meeting with 23 the attorneys and crafting the answers to these questiens.
But i
1 24 when you b011 them all down, what I am s aying is, what you ge: cu:l e
t 25 cf the process when you are all thrcugh is not much ccre than N
Al DFRCEON RFPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
18 1'
that, because I, as the lawyer, if I am any good, am not going to 2!
, a..-
_4. 4 3
MR. BICKWIT:
Maybe the staff resource problem is the 4
lawyers ' treatment of the interrogatories that are served on e
. 5>
them.
i nn j
6 MR. ROSENTHAL:
I have assiducusly avoided all my life M
i 2,
7i being a trial lawyer, bue one of my colleagues who has had N
g 8,.
considerably more experience in this area than have I suggested d
=,
9
- o -a.
w.".a... 7 w _a s a ' k '...- w o h._* m
_a " v u
.."._' s.ha. o
.a.
~..".a.
^
m 2
O 10,
,. ~. ~."a'. a.. s w " ~..*. a " "_ ' a.
l.' s.* *..*. s '.. w =. ~. ~. - s a. o _* =. s i s. h.. a.. k.. a.
P z=
5 11
. o,w c r.a. n *. o.'..". e.*... e.- c g-= *. c y..". a.., w _'. "..c u w "w.- =. = k '... e 4,, d ^ w n.'.. w^
ww 4
y 3
y 12 '
subsections, j ust comes up with a three page run-en sentence in
=
(
h 13 which he includes everything but the kitchen sink, and he presents
=
E 14 '
a. ~d **a.
.s one
..a..o a o y.
e_
3_
~=
2 15 Now, I suppose you can always leave it then Oc the
.=
j 16 boards to resclve quabbles cvar whethe-the two pages should be A
C 17 w,
~. 5..- a. a. o d,.~=.
.m u w 7 w
- c =.. v " a-., a _a -/..". =.
4
.- =. e.- d a. d as
..a.,
a 9
x=
18 this colleague of sine was expressing censiderable skepticism
=H E
19 over whether, in practice, a limitation of this kind would save X
n
. ". a,,
'O
=. =. s ura. a. s.
.da. a. d,
.".a. su e-a.=.a.d
".a.
..".a.
u.
...a.
_'3...
"e.
a
^
v e
21. the staff would need six people spending.two weeks ju's to figure 1
22 o '_'. w h_a.. h _* s v ' "
.d..c ".s
.*... e.- ~ ~- 3_a. -. s"
.e an..
'2.'.
'. r - =. s- ' -. w"~
_'s
.~..~~a.
23
_7
. _c _' - a_ ~.'._o.,
_o s
.c. - =. " o ds
_-a a_..
r 24
- a..c a.
' a.n c a. s.
_4.. '"._'2 2.-=.=_
..".a..
2 7_.
25 w~ N _.c.~c - *'u P_..
n'.':._ A.: % _.-
.9 ". a
- u.=..~ a.
a ai _..s-
_' a o.
^
+
t l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
19 1l experienced lawyer will look very carefully and just follow the i
2:
letter, rather than the spirit.
I I
3l MR. ROSENTHAL:
Well, if it suits his purposes to do 4
i 4l
- that, 4
5 MR. BICKWIT:
As I remember that was one of the e
o n
N j
6, issues that we addressed last time, and we came to the conclusion E
i 7;
that each subpart, whether or not designated as such, would j
8' constitute an interrogat ry.
That doesn't mean you won't have dd 9
s quabb le s.
icy 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The only way you get that settled is, z=
j 11l you get one of those and the staff comes back and cc= plains to 3
y 12 ' the board about it and says, wait a minute, each set of words
=
i
(
i E
13 < between commas is one of their allowed 50, and then the board --
=
x g
14 I can see you can have a great round of argument over the number.
- -=
2 15 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
You could limit the number of a=
j g
16 ' words per.
A 8
y 17 MR. OLMSTEAD:
The obj ect, though, is to ge: the board a=
5 18 involved in abusive cases, but to expedite the process when they
_n I
19 are reasonable.
If you get a set of 50 reasonable questions, or xa 20 even o0, I am going to say to the staff, why do we go to the 21 board, you knew, let's answer these questions and ge; on with it.
22 Cn the other hand, if I have go 212 interrogatories, 23 and the staff is telling me it is going :: take them six scnths t
i 24 Oc answer all the questions, I am going Oc have an instructicn l
25 frem the Ccz=ission or the beard to say, cut tha: kind of stuff Al nFASON AFPOATING COM A ANY INC.
t
20 1
out, and I can go get a ruling on it.
2, COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And why is it, again, that you 3,
can't get that ruling now?
4 MR. OLMSTRAD:
We can go get that ruling now, but the e,
5 boards tend to view the discovery process as fairly informal na 3
6 until they get a motien to compel.
So, essentially what you get e
R 7
from the boards essentially is, staff, why don't you go ahead and Nj 8'
respond to all of that, you know, why are you bothering us with dn 9
these questions when it is essentially relevant to the issues to i
.E 10 b e tried.
And I think it has grcwn up over the years that the z=
11 ',
staff just takes interrogatories, passes them On to the technical E<5 5
12 menbers to respond to, and I grant ycu the rule is there and we z=
i
, can fight, but it does cost us a round of pleading practice that s
13
=_
E 14 ; we can avoid if people are reascnable about 10.
uw i
=
2 15 -
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Have you gene back to the w
=
16 boards in any of the recent cases with a plea for relief?
3 A
p 17 MR. OLMSTIAD:
The case where we went back to the board a=
s 18 and didn't like what we get was not a licensir3g case, thcugh.
In
=s E
19 San Onofre they did gc back.
En 20 MR. SHAPAR:
We went back on that with the 20C-plus 21 interrogatcries.
We sure went back.
22 COMMISSIONIR AEEARNE:
What happened?
f 23 MR. SHA?AR:
We lcst it.
I 24 MR. ClMSTIAD :
I think we won sc=e and ics scce, but 25 we ended up respending to significantly =cre than 50.
5 1,
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
't 21 I.
1; COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me understand what you said i
2l earlier, something to the effect that you make sure the staff 3,
doesn't say too much in the response to the interrogatories.
4 What did you mean by that?
g 5
MR. OLMSTEAD:
I am really talking about if the staff n
a
]
6 is telling me it is going to take six months to answer an K
2 7l interrogatory versus if I can give them an interpretation of the i
j 8-question that is only going to take them six days, that is what d
=
9, you tend to do.
i 10 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, are you trying to protect z=
E 11 their time, in effect?
<3 i
j 12 MR. OLMSTEAD:
Sure, that is what I am trying to do.
=
,=
13 -
CHAIRMAN.HENDRIE:
I hope he is trying to win the case.
=
l 14 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That is what I am trying to 6
I 2
15 understand here.
w
=
g 16 CHAIRMAN HENDRII:
That is, after all, what they are s
i 17 enployed for.
w
?
I E
18 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I think what Sill just did was
=
+
19 to illustrate the principle of the answer that gets you in the n
20.
least amount of troub le.
21; MR. COTTER:
He is a very good trial lawyer.
I might 22,
add, for what it is worth, one of the people in this poll who was J i
23 not a panel member who was oppesed to it was -- in fa0? a 00aple l
24 of them -- well, I guess they split -- Vere former staff nenbers...
I-25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKT:
These are wh at, people working j:
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
w
,-g w
c l
22 I
1 for the panel?
2l MR. COTTER:
Yes.
i I
3!
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
- 4ho no longer have to answer these 4
questions.
i e,
5 MR. CCTTER:
But didn't have a memory of great scars I
nn 3
6, and cain.
a N'
2 7:
CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I don't have a good I
M 1
5 8'
feeling for this.
Why don't you ask Peter?
n d:i 9j CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, Peter.
i 10 ;
CCMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Before I answer, tell me, have z
5 11 you introduced an entirely new concept here, or should the werd i
3 i
i 12 :
" discovery" in the second to last line of your memo of today's z=
(
5 13 date actually b e." discretion"?
=
\\
E 14 MR. CCTTER:
That is a typo.
That is " discretion."
a r
I 5:
2 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
"Scard discretion", good.
That is a
i
=
i g
16 the advantage of my making long, windy statetents.
It gives the
-s y
17 other cc=missioners P. chance Oc read the literature at hand and x
5 5
18 ' chink scre clearly.
j 1
E 19 Ecw do we manage it?
X i
n 20 CCMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I think I agree with what I 21 understood to be the thrust of John's comment, and also some of 22 what 3111 was saying.
To the extent that cne is focusing here 23 as much cr more en abuse of discovery as en the picking up of i
24 days and acn:hs, I think 10 =akes reasonably good sense Oc put 25 in the policy sta e=en a couple of pc s rachs to the effec that I:
s Al nr1DCAN AFAAATING FOM A ANY INF
1 23 1
the Comm*ssions is concerned with that and directs the boards to--
~
2, I don' t know quite what the exact words are -- but to be 3
concerned about, to reflect our concern c1 the subj ect.
And I
(
i 4;
guess I would be prepared at least to think about, or prepared to 5;
put out for comment possibly using 50 as a target number and e
,nN d
6 leaving,it, though, very strongly to the beard's discretion to e
e 2
7.
go beyond that where jnstified.
,~
N i
8l I don't think I want to get much more into the iN d
=i 9
minutia than that.
I think Alan's point today reflects perfectly i
E 10 <
well the points that were made last time, which is that once you
.z 5
11,
put a nunb er like 50 out there, there are going to be all kinds of d
12 permutations and combinations of ways that people will come up z=
(
d 13 with to try to get around, and the main thing will be, as Bill 14 said, for the boards to be aware that the Commission has a t
w
'z 2
15 ' concern here and expects them to try and streamline the process x
E t
16 and to prevent ab uses.
3s
.:- I7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That sounds r =..
I would I
5 Cw 18 support that proposal.
_n t
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
From the standpcint of =aking Xn 20 progress on the documents at hand, cne could include that kind 21 cf language under board management of discovery, and could say 22 the Cc==ission is, you knew, concerned abcut what may, in s0:e 23 cases, be abuse of discovery anc assorted admonitions to the 24 boards alens that line, and. hen say we are contemplating i,
25 pcssible further rule =aking efforts or censiderati:n.
e 1
4 Al DFRCION REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
24 1
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
'4 ell, tha is right, 2l consistent with what you would like to do with the policy 1
i 3;
scatement.
l 4l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is right.
But the policy g
5, stater.ent, then, wouldn!t say, now, we are going to have a rule N
i j
6 or we tell you to do the following, but rather express the N
8 7l concern about the abuse, about the boards' need to pay sete N"
j 8!
attention to the point when it is brought to them by one of the i
d i
9' parties.
I assume this applies equally to all parties.
zoy 10 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
Then if the rule itself is z=
{
11 modified, as Howard suggested would be best, that can b e 3
i 1
g.
12 ;
acccmplished.
=
i
(
E 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
And that would be a way of de-eg 14 ! coupling whether or not we do proceed with a rule change from l
b
(
i t
15 getting the policy statement out, which would be desirable.
a
=
j 16 COMMISSIONER AEIARNE:
I would like that, and I would 2
y 17 like to also support Peter's point that then go out for co==ent
~
w:
s 18, on a rule change.
That would seem to be the best way, you kncw, z
l 19 although it might not be co=pletely necessa y.
Still, it is a n
20 sufficiently different concept.
21 CHAIRMAN EINDRII:
You knew, we went out to see what 22 we would get before and get a good deal on those Part 2 changes.
23 I think we ceuld try this one and see what we get.
1 24 COMMISSICNER 3RADFORD:
This one may Ocme as a relief.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Now, that sounds reascnable to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
~
\\
25 i
l 1!
me.
1 2,'
COIGIISSIONER GILINSKY:
That sounds all right.
i i
3l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't we please have scme 4!
redrafting of Section D to pick up this concern about -- I think i
i e
the =ain point would be abuse of discovery, but I think it would 5
H.
j 6'
not be inappropriate, and I think it would be desirable also to n
R, 7!
note the Commission's concern with the potential for extensive Nj.
8 discovery maneuvers after the last document to delay the whole d:i 9!
proceedings going forward, to suggest sced management.
i Oh 10 I Let me commission the ad hoc group -- ien, you please E=
E 11 :
take the lead -- and let's see how quickly we can come up with 3
d 12 j some draft language for a revised section III D.
z=
-\\
d 13 i The second point.
Let me go back new to A, which is
=
i E
14 '
labeled " Time. "
w h
15 '
We have got Howard's schedules, the enes I asked for, E
a=
16,
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You also have a schedule from a
- d p
17 1
Tony.
x
!=
5 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What I am wondering is, wha. is C
19,
reasonable Oc say in the time section of the policy statement?
xn 20 ! Is it practical to have a guideline schedule?
21 I would prefer it, if we can do it.
But if we can't 1
22 do it without tieing ourselves up in knots, why, I would prefer 23 to have the policy statement with simply general language about 24 getting cut through 10.
l.
t, b
O O$
b.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
26 1
you know, I said the other days as one of the final steps in this 2
process, why, I was going to ask the ad hoc committee to produce 3
a reference schedule to be used for the '83, ' 84 et cetera 4;
cases.
The staff is currently using ten months, I might tell you, i
1 e
5, and if that is going to change, why, we need to know what they R
3 6
ought to be using.
e a
i R
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Ten =onths from SSER?
I N
8 8l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
SSER to ini.tial decision, then a i
d I
d 9
month for the Commission on the assumption that the action will
.z 10 take en Appendix 3, and that has been the basis for Harold's z
5 11 estimates and, in fact, the last two, I guess, letters, the l
3 l
I 4
12 Beville Committee reports, and if that is going to change, we z
=
i
(
13 i ought to know.
But the fact that we need to do that for staff
=
E 14 ! planning purposes still doesn' t tell us whether we can or can't a
b l
2 15 ; have a schedule to stick in tne policy statement.
w l
16 !
Now, Tony, is your propc' sed guideline -
it teces out
.'*2 y
17' the same as Howard's alternate schedule with limitations, et i
w=
18 cetera, right?
E" 19 MR. COTTER:
Yes.
a x
n 20 :
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Have you looked at his?
And how different is yours?
21 ;
22 MR. CCTTER:
I think it is explained in the notes to 23 mine, and the principle difference is moving the time for the 24 prehearing conference up.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Was yours construtted to nake Al nF AMON AFPG ATING ("OM P A NY. INC.
i l
27 l
l
~
1l 263 days?
I 2l MR. COTTER:
We used all the same time frames that ELD i
l 3,
did with the exception of moving the time for the prehearing i
l 4!
conference.
I 5i COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
Let me ask it a different way.
e 7
n d
6 By yours having 268 days, is that the licensing board's judgment, e
N R
7 yes, 268 days is a reasonable schedule, or is it you were trying i
N i
8 8!
to make what you thought would be improvements within a schedule a
i d
i d
9; which you viewed as being in that 268 days?
z.
i I
E 10 :
MR. COTTER:
The latter.
r z_
3 5
11l COMMISSIONER AFEARNE:
What would you have viewed to be
<m f
12,
a reasonable schedule?
=.
j 13 ;
MR. COTTER:
Again, I am sort of reacting off the top s
=
14 '
of my head.
I think it can be done in 268 days if everybody a.
s.'g 1
9 15 p ushes.
=
i T
16 ;
CHAIRMid HENDRIE:
That is a nine month schedule.
m
- d i
17 MR. CCTTER:
Yes.
x
=
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I dare say it was constructed to be l
l t
n
(
t 19 '
that because I waved hands at a nine month schedule.
=
M 7
l 20 MR. COTTER:
It just seems like a normal gestation i
l l
21l period for an initial decision.
1 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Suppcse you had another 30 days to 23 sprinkle into this ching and make the reference schedule ten i
l 24 months, I assume that we have got the back end frca the time that !
25 the evidentiary hearing closes until the initial decisicn issues
~
l I
i i
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
28 1l pretty well anchored.
It is 120 days in everybody's version at 2
the moment, and I haven't heard anybody complain bitterly that it I
i 3
is immoral, impractical or illegal.
i 4;
So, there are two other phases, then.
There is the y
5; hearing period itself, which is 40 days in these and then n
D
]
6' varying, and the chunk before you get in, and if you had 30 days R
E 7,
hcw would you spread it out?
K I
~
j 8l MR. COTTER:
I think you are going to need it in the d
- i 9'
prehearing phase for discovery, for motions practice, and the i
10 thing I would like to see done in this is to eliminate the z=
!E 11 restrictions on the summary disposition motion.
I think that.
<8 i
j 12 {
you ought to be able to file that any time and that the board
=
1
(-
E 13 i ought to be able to rule on it at any time, and it should not be E
=g, 14 i a pacing item.
We do not have any time frame in here for that.
t.:.
15l MR. SHAP AR:
Well, the proposed rule would eliminate 2w=
i, 16. that.
3
- d i
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We have agreed on a recommendati..
w 5
l
}E 18 from you.
Would your recommendation do that?
c.
E 19 MR. BIC'f4IT:
Our recommendation for the schedule of
=M 20 nine months assumes that you won' actually make it in rine i
21 l =onths.
22 t CRAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I will give you a chance to make that 23 case in a minute, but with regard to taking and ruling en i
I 24 summary disposition mo:icts sort of come what may, does the rule l
l lb I
25 change we approved do that?
I i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
29 1'
MR. BICKWIT:
Yes.
2.
CHAIRMAN EINDRII:
Okay.
So, that is a change that the 1
I 3l Commission has, at least informally, agreed across the table and
.s I
4 I assume when we ses final language we will be able to affirm it.
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That let's you rule on it at e
nn 3
6' any time.
Does it let you take it at any time, too?
Could a n
R 7
motion of summary disposition lie, say, on day 13?
N 8
MR. 3ICKWIT:
Yes, it lies at any time.
If it is n
d d
9:
filed excessively late, the board would have the discretion to z
g 10 s ay that tha would so inconvenience the parties that they would z=
m 11 throw it cut.
<3 6
12 MR. OLMSTEAD:
I think two ;ealisms need to be noted.
z
_=
j 13 '
Cne is, if you haven' t got a ruling on the contentions, it is
=
E 14 hard to file summary dispositions because you don't know what the u
6b E
15,
issues are.
Second, if ycu file summary disposition before you x=
16 have replied to discovery requests on you, the answer you are 3
A h.'
17 going to get is, I will respond to it when I get my respense frca x=
18 the staff.
=
l 6
l I
19 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
That is what I was wendering, i
5 l
n 20 !
what point there would be to a summary disposition motion before i
21 !
the parties had responded to interrogatories.
22 MR. OLMSTEAD: Right.
I don't think *.t is realistic I
t 23 to assume that there would be one "efere then.
I l
S 24 02 AIRMAN EINDRII:
Et the rule dcecn't prevent it.
i t6.
25 ru.. :
m..n v.
- o. < e-u.
.~
9 a
l Al nFGC;ON AFPG ATING rn.vf A A NY. INC.
l
30 1
MR. CGTTER.:
It is just fundamentally the front end is 2i very compact.
3, CHAIRMAN HENDRIH:
Well, it is three and a half months, 1
i 4!
and the time passes rapidly when you are having fun,' and the first i
5 thing you know it is summer and people have to go away for the e
3n 8
6i Fourth of July.
e i
n R
7 How about the 40 days in hearings?
I have heard some
,n E
8' comments that that may be short.
n d
9i MR. CCTTER:
I am assuming all you have got left is
=
i 10 i health and safety and that the thrust of this is really sort of z
5 11 '
TMI related issues, and I think that is probably reasonable.
.I i
3 d
12 '
think the McGuire hearing were what, ab out 21 days.
z
=
I 13 <
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Ye s, b ut there was a fairly limited
=
E 14 litigation area there, I think.
u i
h 15 !
MR. ROSENTHAL:
I think the 40 days is adecuate u.
g 16 '
assuming, of course, that they are going to run week-in, week-out.
w p
17 I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I am still u=
18 concerned not only with respect to that, b ut a number of the
=H E
19 other aspects of the schedule about the fact that most of your x
a 20 licensing board panel members are part time, and throughout the 21 schedule is the assumption, and we talked about this b e fo re, that 22 in comes the motion for summary disposition, and the time that is i
23 assumed here for acting on the motion for summary disposition I
i 24 fc11owing the service of respenses is ten days.
Actually, in j
!I 25 point of fact, it is going to be less than ten days if the motion i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
l l
2.,
I cr the responses happen to be filed on a Friday, and the board
- s a*
e da s.
Ou.
1, wd uo ga...".e ur.*. ' '
.v.a nda-], ard
..".a...
/
3 whether you are talking nine days or ten days, just picture your 4
board.
It is three members, two of them are very likely to be 5
part time, one of them is almost certain in a lot of these cases e
,nN s
s:-- d u
ovaa -"a --"--/ = ~d e
6 o "a - a -
-
- te -
na "a=~d
-aa r
me
- ~e ~ e ~ =a*J ~~c ~ " a ak'a o dra-a~*a.r ~"* s- ** "-as
- -=
~~- ~
-e
.au-ra
- J~
n.
7<
M 8
s---
-n.
5N d
7 = a d e. k..a. 3. c...
- a..' a.- a.,. *
- a..- a.
s.... -.. 3 -
. ^ "*
- nk wa.
_e
.u 2.
.' *. s.
.# ^.". ". a.
." *. '. d.. a. a".i "
- cu...,
k.*.*.S"s*-
o".*.k.
2..,
~
10 cS.
d^
E-w u.
u
-Z
.e... g7. w g.o.' s e.4. -
w, e...o*4.n.s w.e w g.
~.4
..w.
3.
=a ..s .a y..-. .a y .~. <t 12 a' us - --.k = w" an /c u a~a 'ock' e~ a a "a a"- ^# -"a =sr - s -- -z i = \\ i s.,u a. s..,., ga ~. u-a. m a /, c t a.-. gs..s-.e.. - c,na.g a n .u. -u n. 13 m. = -~ "a=~
- -d
~"2'- -"===-
- ve s"
" * * * * * ~ - " u " o v =- a" " s - s~ ~~ ~- = 14 "---"s> J~ ~~- ~" - a t, ha= r 15 2,,. 3., -.-.,w, ,, 4 -, a -. w"., &,,,. 4, -w&- c 2,, - - w,,,.S. s--"s ~~ -- ---re s- - -- ~ -- ~~- -x= ,o c u,., .ean.. .s. 16 m. t
- n "ca-d
-^-a-"a" =' ss-J> c ?- = y > g 17 -,.f.. 'a ar
- a"~ ~ ~ ~ s =- -
-' ~ - a -~s- ~-- -~ M=
- " ~~ cs a a-a 3>
^$'a "c-d $= -=-"a" .,e 18 aJs>=o -= J-- es. s-~-- - - - - - ~ -~ ~ = .----] -.=..'. 2 0 ". a. = = *.-.s-d a
- a, " u.,..". a
.' s.*. c - a.. '...*..,- .'a..=.=. -" a. e-4. --j ~ }9 t x =. j 20 six weeks, and you say to the beard, okay, you kn w, you ay be
- x ~"
~^~a a ~d as2 waaks " ' ~ d --y""a 21 c" "~a-a c "- s'x waaks> - *=- -= J - ~- . a , 2... " - a $ k
- -~ " a k = ~ d
--eda ax=-
- =
a== .w. 22 -a" - s-e l r - - = = - = -"a-a v - "- = -a .v = *
- i.
~~ -- d o s - =- - --- a - - ----a --"a" 23 s, gg,J
- 2. n..
y e. o. p.. =w-g. 4 s..J.e. - . W 4 g *..k.g. .w3 4. .. *. =... 24 .c y .w -w-.. 4 u 2.,... .w. 2,- 2,.., 25 l 22, 4-----r---" .we. ....2 e-, 2*... -. l' I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY'. INC. i
32 i 1 1 may well, in a complicated case with a number of issues, slip. I, 2i MR. COTTER: I just don't think that is going to be as i I 3 much of a problem as whether or not the parties are going to be 4l ready on all issues, and one of the newer elements is the 5, emergency planning problem. e A i n 8 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Furthermore, there has never been a 1 g 7 any cuestion in talking about this kind of schedule that this was E 8! a prototype rather than a compelled schedule for all cases. I-a Og 9l think as we go down the line we will have to look increasingly i 10 for paro time board members who perhaps are retired or semi-i 5 11 ; retired who, in fact,-are in a position to agree that they go on n J 12 a :ase, when it comes into the hearing phase they will be able to i z / i ( E 13, devote six or seven weeks to it, if necessary, essentially full = 1 1 E 14 ' time, and then after a couple of months after that settle down and A r I k 9 15, p ut in some more weeks in order to get an initial decision out. e = 16 ' Part time board members who are controlled by academic ~ n M l d 17 schedules so they can only come, you knew, for a week now and a a j g week at Easter vacation, you know, we are just going to have to n i I 19 not use them on mainline cases and write them off the board in s M i 20 l due time. COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What you probably see now, in 21 22 ; terms of people with academic responsibilities, is that they 23 come parts of weeks, and they will have -- I am just guessing, buti l t 24 they will have teaching obligat:.ons, say, on a Thursday and I;a 25 Friday, and they may be available for board duty Monday, Tuesday {.l9 -. } l ALDERSON.'4EPORTING COMPANY. INC.
23 1 and Wednesday. I can't believe we are getting six week blocks of 2 time out of any except the retired ones. 3 CRAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think that is probably right. 4 MR. SHAPAR:.We are talking, essentially, ab out the 11 i e, 5 impacted cases now. Jus t focusing on those 11 i=pacted cases, nn 3 6 Tony, are a lot of part time members assigned to those 11 cases? M 2 7: MR. CCTTER: Again, I would double-check, but again ~ M g 8 with those you are really talking pretty much TMI issues. There dn 9, have been substantial hearings in =ost of those cases. i E 10 MR. SHAPAR: But you j uggled a let, I think, recently E_ 5 11 to address that prcble=. <s d 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: That is primarily board chairmen, z (- = S 13 l you knew. He hasn't got that =any permanent technical me=bers = E 14 so that we can cover the heavy cicse-in hearings. He has to use l w i-l = -art time people, and I =1s-ht note, we have Ot.c a r t time people 9_ 15 s e a 1 = I 16 like =y friend Walter Jordan, who seems to be able to get Oc l 3 i 1 17 Harrisburg. As I understand it, another twc weeks en tha: d .w= l 18 hearing and he is a vcting citizen of the Cc==cnwealth. l I 19 .vR. CCTTER: ?do Of the three members of that beard are XM 20 part ti=e and they have been in hearing since Cctcber. l 21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, I think, you know, there will i t 1 I 22 be the case where, indeed, the chairman gets pneu=cnia cr 23 sc=ething and, you knew, cugh, but for the pro:ctype schedule, l 24 why, if ycu think as a prc:0:ype basis it is all right. I was i i* de =. ,a,... d. I. 25 "6 6.'..k.'.-. g-y w u ~.
- S.". v aa. v v-a a' s 2.-. w-w.n a..-
..s, a wwy ....w y I ~e ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
34 1 another 25 out in the front end and have a ten =cnth prototype ~ 2 schedule. 3, MR. COTTER: I would welcome that. 1 4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I want to spend a little more 1 .e 5 time with the schedule anyway. I don't oppose going with the M= j 6, schedule in principle, but I think there are sc=e risks to going e R 7, with a schedule which, for example, might cause our part time ~5 8i board members into early retirement. n d
- i 9
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And for purposes of the policy i
- j 10 j statement, also one could say sc=e =cre general words tha. to z.
5 11, provide a schedule and simply cutter darkly that we work further s j 12, on prototype schedtles a.d will be informing them when we are = 4 4 s 13 ab le, I gues s. = E 14 : COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Ecward had made the point a t: E 15 before that we are talkin about the impacted cases here, bu: the s _a l = 16 i schedule at the =c=ent, at least, isn't labeled that way. 3 st
- j 17 mean, it would be one thing to say that this was the schedule for x=
18 the i=pacted cases. l =. ? i-C 19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Ab solut ely. The schedule we are 5 i n l 20 talking about is not for the impacted cases. The i= pac:ed cases 21, are scheduled, period, each one u 1quely according to its size, I 22 shape, weight, dispcsition and so on. What we are talking here l i I 23 is a prc ctype schedule for cases Oc cc=e dcwn the line for which 1 24 the cu: lines are not yet clear in unicue detail, and for which we i i-i 25 need some eneralized basis for staff clannin_r. s P ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
\\ 1 35 1, New, the advantage of putting 1 in a policy statement 2i is that it is an encouragement to the boards to come close to 10. C 3 And clearly if a board in a given case comes pretty close to the 44 prototype or beats it by a couple of days, why, it can reasonably i e 5 feel that it will receive accolades rather than complaints from ,ea 3 6 the Co==ission, and there is advantage in that. But th'.s is not e a a t R 7 for the impacted cases. i -.l 8 MR. SHAPAR: I would think that one of the biggest its e d 9 in the schedule is the actual number of hearing days. i E 10 COMMISSIONER AHEAF.NE: I have never been very ena=cred im with putting a schedule in a policy statement, you =ay recall, and i 5 11, B
- 5 12 )
since we have now, I believe, gotten agreement on the words z 'l:: i (- s 13 throughou: the policy statement, it would appear to me we wculd 4 =. wu. A a 3. a. a. w a. .a. a. d a p = ^.. o., a. m 4, w, w.... e.c.e,t....,- .w3. -wi, ?cn7's s-"adu'*..s a.d ~"~- a-a"" ac"ad"'* s~, bu-5 15, sakadu'a " o k.
- ^-
~ ~ . ~~~ uu= 16 ' I would also like to work a littie bi more on it, and I think 3 af s. .a c.. w.,. 4-e, 7 .w.... a .. a 2 a.r a... a -,.<.c.w.
- c..,.
qc.w..u.. 2 a 1 x= 5 18 Tcny cc=es up with, j ust because then it is a lo: aasier for hi: =H E 19 t o t urn arou.d -- s n 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Tcck, my intention in saying that as one final product of this line of meetings we were going to have 21 .--J.-a. s e.".a. d u ' a. .# - sa. ".a. ad ".c c ~~. u",,. ~r *.t =.... * -.. ' a- . ".. a. 22 2 .v e .a 1 23 the people who are going to have to ad'udicate it, you know, j .l s M S-l 94d MN O p ~ -Q - s*M.. g A--Am A 4-Mg 24 -- e - ---J p Mg- - - s - -.. r, - ~ -. - - - - - ~ ~ ~ --. ie koA*--g a m. 3
- q em=we9 -
4
- n e..=
m e.o Qemdm- --..f. aon T 4 p. Q -%3- - a $=- 25 ~~ - - - - ~~- s ..i, 5 ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
36 1. saying, well, you forced this thing on me and I went along as a 1 ~ 2 good fellow, but I never thought it would work and it isn't working 3, and there you are, sorry, we can't have it. You are going to have 4, to agree that, you know, on the average that it is something that i 5 i. we can reasonably shoot for. e ,n D j 6 Okay, I think I conclude that policy statement progress R R 7j is best made. We have already given you a mandate to do revised M 8; language in III D, management of discovery. Please do revised n d = 9 language in III A, recognizing that we are not going to attach -- i @z 10 4 at least for the moment let us assume we are not going to attach 5_ 11, a guideline schedule, but we need so: e Commission harrumphing. a:
- 3
.i d 12 waving of hands over the need to get on with the blasted business. z_ = i ( d 13 l And we next time will hopefully be able to look at =_ E 14 ; those two pieces of language and decide finally whether schedule x_ '= 2 15
atters have improved, you know, have clarified enough to be able x
16 to hook it in, or whether that then is the policy statement we can g e p 17 go with, and I think we can be in a position to perhaps nex time w= 5 18 either approve it or practically approve it. = C 19 We will, however, continue to struggle with the = a 20 schedule business, and I guess the ad hockers, and in this, Tony, since you are going to have to do it, your crowd is going 21 22 to have to do it, why, let us see what it would look like with a 23 few more days salted into it. l 1 l 24 As a parenthetical remark, let me tell you wha have ie l t, l 25 got in mind, because Len has been very concerned tha: if the la I I J ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
37 i 1 prototype schedule isn't shcr:er the.n the staff planning basis 2 will keep running over. 3 I am not so uncomfortable with increasing the prctotype 4 schedule to what is now the staff planning basis, if I as a, 5 convinced that there doesn't seem to be a reasonable hope of nN 3 6 moving things =cre briskly. And under the current rules I e 2 7 suspect that if you can achieve, in fact, ten months en the t e i 8' average, we could fairly regard that as a substantial accc=plish-a dd 9, ment. i E 10 Now, indeed there will be cases where it slides past i! 11 that, because some c' these are gcing to be big, ugly cases as <3
- i 12 they coce dcwn the line.
I hcpe there are a few of those that z ( = s 13 are nice, neat, little cases and undershcot it. But it is the E 14 overshcots that we worry about. a 6 5 15 .e,, ycu *us. sca-c' ^## o ". a s#da-..=. 7 r a. -a a u a= ? 16 don't feel so bad about using ten =cnths as both the pro:ctype 3
- n J
17 s c.h.a.du' a a.. d. . ". a. s'.a.'" "3'a...d .e- "o aa.*a- ". a. c a" s a. - a.- a. w '. '.' *a ,. ". a 4 ~ 2,, ., e s 4_, m.e. w. --w0-c t,. ...a. ., e. c,e, n a.....,, n.d a., en, .e. .w ....e w 18 =u - u.. -r,' Ca...s .cw =a*J '
- a-s"-..s
~" "a -aada 8 a a--
s 19 a.a - " a.
".. a -.=- 1 e i n 20 en. You knew, they are going to slip no- =atter what they de by a ' ri.. c -.w ^e, a.d. .a ' a. a. a. w a_ a.-a. . c w "-s '.a. e-. ". a.s. a.#.# " '. a.... *. 3-
- a's 21 4
i g3 ~. u. a. n e e n _a a.e.. t 3 A.s a.s, T. u s.e.y.
- s..e. --a c
- m a y a.
u.. p ~. a. o~. 2 Tase. w. .4-f.- e -yy-w,.4 4.. . w.. 2 .g.2. ..A c
- e. i.w.,,.,.d m
.a 3 .....s u. ... o.7 h.,a g d
- aw m e.,. b.. o. 4q
.g h..s e a - c. - g 'g-.e. e.- Re .v. e 24 s - j' .c e.d A ea .e. w..# o# -.e.
- a. ' g.h..
C e.. k..
- *. <a..a. *J y.
5 w o. h..s. w =. b. ge. e,.h 7
- G.b.
s
- -a y -w -- -
-w 7 i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. I
38 1, scheduling on ten. 2 Now, one other thing which I would ask you to do and 3 that is to generate some proposed rule for comment language en 4 the subject of limiting interrogatories, with appropriate 1 5 discussion about, you know, past that point you need to have the e na j 6 okay from your board and so on, and noting the Commission's R R 7 concern that great, great numbers of interrogatories in some M l j 8] cases begin to look less like what the whole thing is intended d I d 9' for than it does about simply the parties whacking away at each i 10 other to kind of wear the other guy dcwn. z_ E 11 4 So, a new proposal for comment. I guess it wculd be i 3 i j 12 l f air in the background statement there to note that we had gone = ( g 13 around once on Part 2, that we decided not to do item 1 of that = m i g 14 i round, but are still lcoking at ways to try to have a better -k 2 15 centrol while still allcwing reascnable procedures and se en. a= g 16 I assume that you are, in any case, shaping up final e p 17 language en items 2 through 6 of the previous endeavor. a= 18 MR. SICKWIT: Which you new progese : sc Oc final on _n t 19 as scen as 1: is ready? Xa 20 l CHAIRMAN HENDRII: I would think so. Does anybcdy see 21 any reason not to? i 22 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE: No. I 23 CHAIRMAN HINDRIE: The fact that we are a: leas: + 24 cente= plating the pos sibility O f scr: cf a 10wer grade iteration te i, 25 of item 1, I think, would not seem Oc me :: be a reason :c hold j. _.], l' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 39 i l 1 ! up those others. ~ 2' MR. BICr4IT: I agree. 3, MR. SHAPAR: What about air = ail or air express, or 4! express mail? That came up during the discussion. 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, both you and Tony have built e nn 3 6! it into your schedules, I think, because the way the dates run it a N ?. 7 looks to me like people have got two days to hustle the stuff a E 8l back and forth, rather than five. Otherwise, these dates wouldn't n d i d 9! show up, right? Y 10 Now, does that mean a rule change or what? z "A 11 l MR. SHA?AR: That is the questien I was raising. 3 'zi 12, MR. BICr4IT: I b elieve it does =ean a rule change. ( =, E 13 CO.EESSIONER AHEARNE: I would want public comment on = l 14 that. N 2 15 ' MR. SICr4IT: I can understand that.
- s=
16 l CO!OESSIONER AHEARNE: Because the checks that I have 3* r F.a 17 made so far don't seem to correspond with the confidence that i 1 g = l 18 ' some of you have Odat, well, everybcdy is doing it and it is nc = I, 19 -c reb lem. n i 20 ! CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't think pecple have said 21 ; everybody is dcing it. 22 MR. SHA?AR: No. There are problem with it. 23 CHAI?l4AN HENDRIE: I think it is best said that it is 24 being done in sc=e cases. t, - 25 MR. RCSENTHAL: I learned coday ycu can't send express P Al nFACiON AFAORTING COMP ANY. INC.
l 40 1! mail to a postal box. So, there are a few little wrinkles of t, 2i that nature. 3 MR. SHAPAR: Also taking delivery after 4:00 p. m. 4 sc=etimes. So, there are problems, and getting co==ent on it 5 would be a socd way of finding cut what they are. e nn CHAIR'4AN EENDRIE: G.C., add that tc yeu-preposed 3 6; M R. 7, rules for coc=ent. M i 8' Okay, have we got other ite=s en this scneral subject a d 7* 9, . g. _m. w a. o u g.h.
- o a s.=. a"-'
=.. ". _' s. a. a.. d... 3 s =. a.. s. o. a. ~u_=. e ,,.c 3-a..s d.,.e. s.a-,. .o 3., .e.-,,e c y.. o.,. a,...,_ 10 . u...a. -n o e w 2. E 5 11 MR. SICK *dIT : The only iten I could think of would be <3 d 12, that we had a Gilinsky proposal as an alternative to limitations z= ( s 13 cn discovery to limit the staf"'s participation as a party in = E 14 these preceedings.
- dhile I wculd prefer to take that up with the a.
s 15 Cc==issioner here, our recc==endation is that that is a very z = 16 =afer change and that further study is needed, a.d we wculd 3 i i p 17 prepose that we de sc=e analysis with the help, if we can get it, x= ~ 18 ^'."..a. w " "..a. - ^ '.# _* c e s c...".a. 3 " a..=. ' ^.... ^ = w. 7 l i I 19 COMMISSICNER AREARNE: " dell, it is my feeling that I l = l i M t 20, wouldn't even bother having ycu de the analysis. 21 CHAIREN KENDRII: Yes, I wouldn't either. I w^"'d 22 -*.4
- u..= c ".s s *...3
.a ' *.. '. =. "' $.~ c u.d . ".. =.. a". ' a_, ". "., wc"'"..'. d* -.w ' =' /* m.' w'.'.' ^ "^ =.. w"_.. S 23 a a. a_...u".....a.... ..- v.=.s w=s j w f i w '. a.=.- a..".o
- a. w.". *. *.
...a..'.. 24 ^ ..I - 25 w'w.d...*..*. V "e..'. a'.". r A.= "e -.- s"ge-=.s. da w"..*- "'w .'.= ^ i l I' I Al n5"AGON AF AM ATIN(; ("*nM A ANY int-L
41 I; here and we can discuss it. l 2< CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Of course, maybe we ought to just i 1 3l vote en it. 'de do have a quorum if I act before Peter gets out 1 4, of the room, e 5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I am not necessarily a proponent A l a 1 3 6 of it, but the question of the role of the staff in hearings a N I 2 7: seems to me to be a fair one to look at. I don't think we are i ,n i 8' going to get it done in the context of this round of meetings, n d 9 and in fact if our various oversight committees are about to i E 10 saddle us with a study of the entire hearing process anyway, that i 5 11, =ay be the place to take it up. I =ay try to discourage them. 3 i d 12 from doing that, but if, as I suspect, I don't have much success, z= (- S 13 then that would be the place to do this. = E 14 ' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I have noticed with rest.rd to our N C i E 15 ; relations to our staff, just as with the relations cc the wz j 16 Ocngress to the Cc= mission, the superier body seems to have no i 2 y 17 o'cj ection whatsoever to asking the inferior body to do studies l r l E 18 On any and all subjects. i = i-C 19 MR. BICK'4IT: Yes, I have ncticed : hat myself. 3c: i 20 C6fC4ISSIONER 3RADFORD: I think the licensees might tell 21 _ you that ab out the staff. 1 22 CHAIRMAN HEND?lE: I am sure it Operates on down the 23 line. I suspect tha it has sc=ething tc do with the fundamentaisi i 24 cf human Seings, rather than with nuclear regulation. i 4 e 25 MR. SHA?AR: Is the cente::icn issue still hanging, the l - 1 I ) l ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
l 42 1: threshold for contentions? 2 MR. BICK*4IT: Yes. 3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The Commission doesn't have a s 4 maj ority-to limit contentions, and I just don't propose to 1 5 haggle over the matter any more. There is a proposition wandering = A a j 6 around that I think Vic authored that said, well, why don't we R R 7 I improve the language of the rules on contentiens to make it a M 8 little clearer that we would like ceccle to file some supporting-n d I~ documents, et cetera, and the status of that is that I have ci 9 i 10 l said, yes, fine with me. It is not much, b ut --- z = i si 11 MR. BICK'4IT: If that is your position, you might have <m 4 12 a majority for that change in the rule. z= = 13 i MR. SHAPAR: And go out with the other proposed rules
== E 14 at this time. id i 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRII: 'dhat would you do? .:s= 16 MR. SICK'4IT: I would do just that. g y 17 C0fCIISSIONER 3RADFORD: I can't quarrel with that.
- s=
$i 18 CHAIFlGN HENDRII: Did you cc =ent on Vic's proposal? COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: I as trying to remember, E 19 Xa I i 20 frankly, but whether I did or not, I certainly can' t quarrel with i i i 21 : putting it out for comment. I l 22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Jchn, I think, was not what I would 23 call fond of it. It seemed to fall short of his aims en 24 contentions. a 25 CC.ti:SSIONER AHEARNE: Teu noticed. 3 I J As nFAcnN AFAnATIN(:: rnMAANY INF
'o i e 43 1 CHAIRMAN EENDRIE: Well, it was a pretty 1cw fence and l 2l it didn't have any barbed wire on it. But do you see any --- 3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: No, particularly since I can add 4 a ec==ent to that going out for cc==ent. 5 COM}ESSIONER BRADFORD: There is your barbed wire, I Aa 3 6' think. e -e R 7i CHAl? MAN HENDRIE: All right. There is apparently N I j 8 sentL=ent along the table, assuming Vic still supports his own e= 9' proposition, to add it for cc==ent. New you have got three items z." E 10 to go out with. This is snowballing. i 5 11 MR. SICKWIT: Ancther, while we are at it, is the <3 d 12 s ua spente issue. We did not put that on the agenda for this z ( ,= 1 E 13 ' meeting. .= E 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I regard it as dead. w i 6 4 5 15 MR. BICKWIT: All right. That would certainly be -a= l ? 16 counter to our reco==endation in that I think there is a k2 . proposition that has been put forward that =akes sc=e sense. I h. 17 a= 18 CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE: If Peter is willing to enderse =H E 19 his principle he j ust said a =c=ent ago, that he can't object to Xn 20 l putting it out for cc==ent, we could put that out for cc==ent. 21 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: I wouldn't want the propcsitten i i i 22 taket too broadly, but I as willing to eltend it that far. I I 23 MR. SICKWIT: We have in preparatien a paper -hat 1, 24 attempts to put into rule fer: what we understcod to be the e 25 j preposition that was on the table the last time we discussed this...la ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
s 44 1 I would propose sending that paper up to you and see how the i 2 Commission would react to it. 3 COE4ISSIONER A'iEARNE: That sounds fine. 4 MR. SHAPAR: There is a certain advantage of getting 5, them all out at the same time. e X. r 8 6 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: All right. Hustle it forward. Do Kg 7, you want to treat it separately than the three proposed rule Y t ?9 4 9 8I ite:S? a d i =i 9 MR. SICKWIT: I don't. Our recommendation is to put out i 10 ; a proposal for comment. But you haven't seen the proposal yet, z 5 11 ; so why don't you take a lock at it and see whether you want Oc n J 12 I go that direction. z =. l t-d 13 ' CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Hustle it up by itself and we E.ll = E 14 l see if we can't let you knew speedily whether we would agree go a b 15 it going out for comment. a= 16 MR. BICK'4IT: Fine.
- sf F.a - 17 CHAIRMAN HINDRIE:
I an almost afraid to ask what else. W* l 5 18 ' Every time I have there has been sctething else. What else? c I 19 MR. SICKWIT: I don't think there is anything further xn 20 i to be done. There are other things that are arcund. 21 i MR. SHAPAR: Yes, there are other ideas around, but I 22 thought your question =eant things tha: the Commission had 23 ' considered and that you hadn't gotten to. 24 CHAI?l4AN HENIRIE: Yes, just those. e 25 MR. SICKW T: I don' think there is anything else tha: _. I ' l ALDEK'ec N REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 45 1' is ripe for you to consider. 2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Could I lodge a violent protest? 3 CHAIRMAN F"NDRIE: Go ahead. 4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I understand that you decided i =, 5; not to do anything with the suggestion about possibly reducing 3 6. the staff's participation in hearings, at least en certain issues. e E I R 7 It seems to me that is worth --- ~ N ] 8l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, what I said was that there was d I n 9 no point in sending the counsel off to do a study. I think we i 10 ; ought to discuss it here, either at this meeting, if you want to z 5 11 ; stay a bit, or at another meeting. i 3 1 4 12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Maybe I misunderstood. z ( j 13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It is a fairly significant = E 14 l proposition. a b E 15 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I thought you were putting a z 16 ' things together that you were going to put cut for public 3* i i 17 co==ent. xx 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRII: Just so. My view is that that One _n t 19 is not about to be ready for language to be drafted to go out XM i i 20 with the other rather minor sorts of things that we have or will 21 ; have ready to go out shortly. It is.also my cpinion at the 1 22 ' noment that you are never going to be in that situatitn, but --- 23 COMMISSICNER AEEARNE: 'ihy would you want to restrict 24 the staff's participation? l 5 25 CEAIRMAN HENDRII: Why don't we kick it around for a i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
46 1 minute or two. I have got the afternoon. l 2, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: It seems to me that at least in 3 certain cases, you knew, the issues can be perfectly well argued 4 out between the applicant and whoever else is in the proceeding. 5i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Give me an example of a case. e M n 8 6' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I can't give you any R 3 7; specific examples. i i i a 8! CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I j us t don ' t see hcw ?.he board would a dd 9i operate and come to a point where it says, you knew, we are able i 10 to make the findings required and so on On this case without z i i 11 ; having in hand the staff's review, and in our proceedings I don't i n d 12, see any way for them to pay any attention to the results of the z_ 1 t = staff's review without hearing the staff. k. d 13 l o= E 14 ; COMlESSIONER GILINSKY: But it seems to me there is a w 6M 9 15. difference between the staff appearing in the hearing and, of l Gz 16 course, the staff documents would play a very important role in n2 p 17 the hearing, and the staff participating --- a2 18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I don't see how they can unless = somecody stands up and speaks for them. t 19 = M 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right, and they would be called 21 by either party or the beard. You know, you are taking the i extreme case in which the staff doesn't participate at all as a 22 i 23 party. Sut you knew, at the opposite extreme you wculd simply 24 have precedural issues in which there is no need for the staff te j i' 25 get involved in whether semebody had filed on time or hadn't, and I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
47 1 it seems to me these things can be dealt with by the applicant 2 who has an interest in getting the --- 3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But the staff doesn't have to 4 get involved in that anyway, do they? = 5, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But typically they do. l 8] 6 MR. ROSENTHAL: Typically they have an interest in it, K i R 7, b ecause if you are dealing, for example, with a late petition, 3j 8 the question is are you going to grant the late petition or not, d d 9' and the effect of granting the petition may well be that the i 10 l staff is going to be confronted with the contentions that are z 1, i set forth in that petition. Nobody at this point compels the i 11 l n 4 12 staff to come in on these procedural matters, but it is in their z ~ l f 3 13 ! self interest to do that.
== I 14 ; CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I re= ember issues before us in w 6 I k 2 15 hearings that we held on which I was surprised that the staff had a= 16 i a point of view at all or felt the need to express itself.
- Now, nW p
17 I can't give you the specific examples, but a= 18 MR. SHAPAR: That was an exper: natter, wasn't it? = w I 19 ' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, no, I was thinking of xn 20 others as well. And it seems to me useful jurt to take a look at 21 ! the ptoceedings and see whether there are such matters. Now, if l 22 there aren't, we can just forget about it. B ut I think we will 23 find that there are such matters. 1 I 24 CEAIRMAN HENDRII: Where dces the government's interest j le 25 in carrying out the mandate of the Acc=ic Energy Act get put into l ALDERSON REPORTINGCOMPANY. INC. I
ta 1, the process if there aren't government e=ployees who are parties i 2' to it? 3 MR. COTTER: You can participate without being parties. 4 A= I nistaken that this is the only govern =ent agency in which e 5 the staff is ac[ually a party to the hearings? ,n N 3 6 MR. SHA?AR: I think you are mistaken. m n 1 A. 7l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, you know, if you take Y I Mf 8 sort of managing the staff's role as being a doctor who gives a 1 M d i d 9, health exa= to this. applicaticr. and stamps it approved with z. 10, certain conditions or not approved, and then the man goes en to z_ 5 11 : get per=ission to fly, it doesn't mean that the doctor has got to \\ 3 J 12 ' run up there and appear before the board and argue that the can z= 13 I ought to fly.
==m E 14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But aren't, in most cases, there aw b 5 15 challenges to that staff opinion? I cean, it is the staff _wz 16 ' judging, it appears to me --- 3 -s y 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. Intervening parties sort of a b 18 deal with the applicant's case with the back of their hand. It =w I 19 is the staff they go after because they figure, and pr bably not l = l M 20 incorrectly, that the boards are going to' pay considerable 21 attention to what the staff has to say about the issues in a i 22 case. And it >rns out it is in the nature of things, 23 unf:rtunately, that i i 24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, the staff wcu_: appear :c ; i 25 describe the docu=ents in any case, because they will have 0: we 1 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
49 1i appear as witnesses. i 2 i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Submit to cross-examination. 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: One possibility is they would 4 appear as witnesses for the applicant. e 5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Without counsel. 9 3 6, CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I don't know. I am j ust R u 2 7i discussing this. ,~ I MR. ROSENTHAL: I don't think that you, if I recall n i 8 a i et E 9 correct, had offered this as possibly a way of saving staff i 10 resources. New, in ter=s of your involt ament or not involve =ent i 5 11, in the procedural questions that arise, I don't think, apart frca <3 d 12, the lawyers, there isn't a substant.ial amount of involvement at z= 13 all. So, what you are really talking about is their involvement = E 14 l in the resolution. of technical issues, and I suppose it depends a 6e E 15 ' upon one's philosophy, cut I for one, whether er not I will a= 16 always agree with the staff cr adopt its position, I want that 32 y 17 position in hand. I like to think of the staff as occupying a w 18 different position than that of the c her parties to the na t 19 ' proceeding in the sense that the applicant has an axe to grind = a 20, wanting to get this plant licensed. Most of the intervenors, not 21 ' all of them, perhaps, but = cst of them, have the contrary axe 22 - that they are trying to grind. And if you proceed on the basis 23
- ha: the staff is the one party there without a parochi21 axe to l
24 Erind, tha: they are supposed to be locking a this objectively l i* 25 frc= the standpoint of the reasonable assurance that the plan ALDERSOx 4 REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
30 1 would be safe, protection of enviren= ental values, I would want 2l the staff there, and I would want to hear from the staff whether 3 or not it was a =P.tter of things covered in the SER cr their FES. 4 Now, if it is those issues, they have got to be there, 5 l, because somebody has to be on that stand to introduce and then = ,nD 3 6 defend these documents. But even assuming it is an issue that n 1 2 7! isn't specifically' covered, if it is an impcrtant safety or i i i j 8 environmental issue, I think that the process is furthered by d n 9 having the staff there, whether er not, again, the beard happens i 10 to accept the staff position in a particular case. z_ 5 11 MR. SRAPAR: I think Alan was only saying that ~b ecaus e <n 4 12 l I agree with him that the appeal board shouldn't be abolished. z= ( - p 13 ' MR. BICKWIT: I think the case is strengest for taking = 4 E 14 the staff cut when the staff and the applicant have resolved all aw= l t 15 their differences and the staff's position and the applicant's x= n I think Oc take them cut under any other ? 16 Ocsition are one. M 17 circumstances, =y own view is that there is clearly no case for j x= 18
- that, i
= l C 19 MR. ROSENTHAL: But frequently, even thcugh the botten l En 20 line =ay be the same, the routes that the staff and the applicant 21 proceed along are quite different, and I think it is helpful c i 22 ~ have these differen apprcaches, even thcugh, again, their 1 23 conclunion might be the same. I -.~...---... = ..s =sa .'.=.+.. l I = 24 . = " e.v.. '. - s l6 25 even with that prc;csal. 1,Ia i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. i 4
51 1 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, but that covers most of 2; the cases. I mean, in most instances the staff and the applicant 3, positicns are essentially identical by the time they get to 4 hearing. 5 MR. RCSENTMAL: Again, the bottem lines may be e M n 8 3 6; identical or similar, but frequently they reach it by quite = R R 7!' different routes. We have e.xperienced that in virtually every i 3 8 8l case that the appeal board has taken evidence in. a i d i n 9i CEAIRMAN HENDRIE: You frequintly find the applicant i h o i g 10 saying, yes, I have agreed to put this in, but I think it is z_ 5 11 j unnecessary nonsense, but it doesn't hurt safety and so on, you <3 d 12, know. z i i ( y 13 < MR. SHAPAR: I think all those reasons are valid, but = E 14 l I think there is another one, and that is just asking the question, aw I i 2 15 l what best advances the public health and safety in the forma: of 5 1, 16 ' a public hearing. I mean, you know, you spend a few hundred 3 A
- j 17 thousand or a few million dollars of the taxpayers' dollars to -
a =j 18 ; develop and SER and an EIS, and the party, the crganization that ~ c t 19 developed it has aade at least the greatest paper contribution x i n 20f to a discussion of the health and safety issues. l 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The question isn't whether i 1 l 22 ; staff members will be there to explain the SER or the reasoning i 23 that led up to it. It seems to ne more a question of whether l l 24 you are a party with a definite point of view and a strategy and l is l l 25 then working Oc attain a certain end in the hearing. Mcw, 1: a w 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 52 1 seems to me that the staff doesn't have to be involved to that i 1 2 extent in all aspects of the hearing. 3 Now, I am not prepared with a battery of examples from 4 hearings, b ut --- e 5' MR. SHAPAR: But who would represent the staff's Aa ] 6! witnesses when they went before the beard, and who would protect R R 7: them on cross-examination, if anybody? l n E 8l MR. COTTER: You would. a d 9i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Protect them in what sense? z 10 What sert of protection are you talking about? z= E 11 i MR. SHAPAR: The kind of an objection any lawyer wculd <t i d 12 ' raise when you have an improper cuestion asked on cross-z ( ,= = 13 e xamination, o= E 14, MR. CCTTER: You would. xs= A 7 15 ' MR. SHAP AR: Representing whom? E= i ? 16 MR. COTTER: Representing the staff. 3 A ( p 17 MR. SHAPAR: Then I don't understand you. a= 18 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: There are dif fered: ways in j ~ E 19 which different commissions have their staffs participate in the I X i l M 20, hearingc process. We were talking a year or so ago in the I 21 j context of ex parte rules whether it was autc=atic that the line 1 l l 22 should be between the staf f and the Cc= mission, or should ycu I i 23 have :he line be between the Cc==1ssion and One staff on the i 24 one hand and the cutside world en the c:her. And different i i' 25 cc= missions dc take different approaches to the way in which the j l i I i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
53 I staff participates, and I must say there may be some merit to ~ 2, taking at look at some of the other approaches and seeing how 3 they would work out in our case. 4 I am not, I think, a proponent, and I am not sure g 5, anyone is a proponent of saying that the staff shouldn't be nN 8 6 involved in the hearings at all. a Mg 7j COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Vic, in your description, at n E 8l least I see the way you are describing it, that much of what the n d i d 9, staff now does you would still see them doing; that is, being i n 10 there to present the documents, to describe their documents, and z i 11 you didn't disagree with Tony, so that I assume that the point 1 3 'd 12 i that our lawyers would then be the lawyer, essentially, acting on z 3 i S 13, b ehalf of them might also still be there. Is that correct? -= $a 14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What do you mean, our lawyers? E 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Well, Howard asked --- w= Who would defend them? 1 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: ~
- 2 h.~
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Yes. x 5 5 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I am not sure. Su: i: E 19 seems to =e this is.an area that is worth explorips. In fact, a =a 20 i number of co=menters on the earlier round suggested this or some 21l variation of it as a possible useful change in the Cc==1ssion's 22 practice. 23 XR. SICKWIT: Cne advantage of it relates 00 the public l 24 appearance of the agency, and so of ten our hearings have been j' l 25 criticized for having the staff and the applicant lined up ~ l 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
54 1 together against the intervenors. ~ 2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Sure, that is true, but we have 3 to keep in mind that our fundamental objective has to be to serve 4 the public interest, not necessarily to do it as appears. 1 5i MR. SICKWIT: I am just citing an advantage to the ,nn 3 6 proposal. I did not say that it was controlling. e n i 8 7 MR. ROSENTHAL: Well, I think it is certainly true that ~ 1 n I j 8 the staff could at one and the same time present through d d 9i witnesses its technical judgments en the many issues of the day i 10 < and be available for cross-examination on those judgments and at z_ 5 11 the same time not be sitting out there with the scalpel trying <3 i d 12 l to cut up other parties. I mean, I don't know whether it would z= i ( 13 be in the form of, more or less, like an interested state which =_ E 14 comes in and states its position, but is not necessarily cast in u 6h 2 15 the role of combatant or not. And I think from what you had a: j 16 said a few minutes ago that that was what you had in mind. And s y 17 it might wall be that one could constrict to some extent the w= 18 staff's role as an advocate in the traditional sen=, apd at the l _P C 19 same time ensure that the staff's technical position is on the Xn 20 table and it is open to cross-examination. Because on the latter l 21 score, as I indicated a few minutes. ago, I think that is 22 imperative. I i l 23 M?. SHA?AR: At which point you could ask the ;_ stion i e i 24 ab o ut whether or not this would ge better decisions er the same 25 decisions or worse decisions fren the boards. l "i 1 i i ? i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
55 1, MR. CCTTER: If you had essentially the same information 1 2l in the proceeding, you j ust don't have the staff participating in 3 the adversarial aspects of it. 4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I guess at least initially it i e, 5 sounds like what you don't have is the mo t knowledgeable i M 9 3 6! participants in the proceeding participating as much as they e R R 7; previously had. \\ M COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: We were talking about j 8j d i d 9j interrogatories, and it turns out that we use interrogatories to ,2 h 10 ' the fullest because, you know, you are in a contest and you z_ 5 11 can't expect our lawyers to do anything to try to win, and, you i 3 d 12 ; know, they are given a set of rules and they do their best, as z = = 13 if they were on the other side, or one of the other sides. m= E 14 ' But I am not sure that that necessaril:t serves the h! 15 ; pub lic interest, or that it necessarily.is a use ful way to use w= 16 government employees' time. 3 M p 17 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE: I can see possibly even agreeing a= 18 w1:n you if it was clear that the role of the hearing process was ; _c I 19 to only resolve the issues in dispute with high thresholds of X E i 20 : centention. Then I could see a logic-to that. 21 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You would buy that package? l 22 COMMISSICNER AEEARNE: I would certainly be willing to i 23 give it very serious consideration. I e 24 CHAIRMAN EENDRIE: I really don't see any way to have l 25 I' the staff's point of view made M aa" '- a hearing and not have the! I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. ~
56 s 1: Caff defend itself, and to that extent be an advocate for any i noint of view. 2 3 ) 3 It studies these matters, does analyses, comes to l 1 4 conclusions on parts of the safety analysis and so on, and they i 5, come down to an overall conclusion that it is or is not, with the =e i n a 3 6 chaa.ges they want in it, fit to get a permit or a license. The n 1 2 7i parties who don' t want the plant to go ahead have no choice but i M f j 8 to attack that finding, in whole and in parc, and there is no way d n 9' for the staff to make it and then stand aside and say, well, we i 10 i dcn't care anymore, you know, leave it on the table and walk z_ l 11 away. They are going to have to defend it. They are going to 3 d 12 have to answer questions. z: ( E., 13, COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's take the issue of .= i E 14 interrogatories. Suppose we get to 50 interrogatories and awu 15 semebody wants to ask another question. Should the staff be a I i ? 16 in there fighting to prevent them from getting another question? 3* i i 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: If it is taking staff people off the w= i s 18 review of what is your favorite reactor, the answer is prcbably, l P C 19 on b ehalf o f the staff's managers, yes, l x i a 20l CCMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: How ab out if soebody petitions 21 ; the Commission for intervenor funding and the applicant cpposes 22 it? 23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The staff, as far as I knew, walks 24 up here and sees if it can see wha; a current majority pcsition j l' 25 en the Cc=missicn is and follows :ba: lead. a I 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. l
1 l 57 1' COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I would hope at the present time 2I they would say they read the law. 3 COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: My only point there is, that i I 4' case actually happened, and'it seemed to me that the staff would i l e, 5, have been just as well advised to let the Commission decide it n a 3 6 on the basis of the pleadings before us as to throw in a brief a i a 7! of their own. ~ i 3 i 8 8 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: If you had had a widely a i d i =! 9l disseminated ???G, then the Commission positions on the i 10 l i=cortant issues would have been well understood by everybody in i= 4 s 11 the agency. B d 12 l COMMISSICNER 3RADFORD: I see. The key phrase is widely z .=. \\,
- i 13,
disseminated. t
== i E 14 { COMMISSICNER AHEARNE: I knew. That is why I put it in. a 6 i e i COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD: That has always seemed to me to 9., 15 ' x x i ? 16 b e the extreme case in terms of one where 7 wasn't at all sure B i A t p 17 why the staff felt the need to take a position. But I can't l x= 18 generali::e from that, because there is a whole spectrum of other = a t 19 ! possibilities. E a 20l COMMISSIONER GII,INSKY: Well, it seems to se that this 21 ' is an area that could be usefully explored further. I know you 22 ~ agree, Jce. 23 CEAIRMAN HINCRI? I wouldn't. I would j COMMISSICNER A-:EARNE: I still den't see tha:. 24 )j 25 ' like to ge: a :.ie:le =cre view from vic on wha cugn: : te l. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 3
I o 58 1 explored, because at the mome it I don't see taking the staff out 2 of it. 3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: ' dell, let me try and come up s 4 with some examples for you.. i 5i CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay. Then we will consider it e E 3 6! further. e i E I R 7l Okay, let me declare this meeting on revised licensing l ~ 3 ] 8 procedures to be concluded. d I =i 9 ('4hereupon, at 3: 45 p. m., the meeting was concluded. ) E 10 ' +++ E = si 11 l <3 "4 E 12 l [
- i E
13 I E i E 14 I w i 2 15 a E i 16 3 i A F.: 17
- a1 2
18 l l C i t, 19 l b 20 l 21 22 23 24 ll* 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. i
,e. NUCLEAR EGULATOE CO.WSSICN This is te certify that the attached proceedings before the l' ( NtnZAR FIG.TECFY CONISSICM in the :: tatter ef: Discussien of pdm Licensi.m Procedt=es Date of Proceeding: Itesday, May 12, 1981 Docket llu=b e r: ~ ?Iace cf Proeeeding: Pecm 1130, 1717 F St., N.W., Washingten, D. C. were held as herein appears, and tha: this is the eriginal transcript thereof fer the file of the Cc::. mission., Marilvnn M. Fatiens Official Reper:er (Typed) Y s.t &.;U Y W 5 &_f f a Official Reper:er (Signature) l l r l \\ G 6.\\ l i I e ~e ++-y
we
--c,..-ec,.-..-e ,--.,,-e.-c-, ,.--c- ,- -,.,-,, - m-ev
( I_ ( l ( k k( (h ((k ' ( (T(T( kh (( c=C ' c: TRANSMITTAL TO: /kT Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips
==ch C The Public Document Room DATE: May 13, 1981 m$ Attached is a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting document /s/. These are available for placement in the Document Control System so they will appear on the Public Document Room Accession List. Any document not stampted oricinal should be checked for possible prior entry into the system. 1. Discussion of Revised Licensing Procedures, May 12, 1981. (1 cy) 4 a. Memo from H.Shapar & L. Bickwit to the Commissioners dated May 11, 1981, Subj: Limiting Number of Interrogatories Filed. (1 cy) dfC b. Memo from P. Cotter to the Commissioners 4 dated May 12, 1981,
Subject:
Panel Response to
- B Proposal to Limit the Number of Interrogatories Q
Filed in a Proceeding. (1 cy) c. Memo from P. Cotter to the Commissioners 'a dated May 12, 1981,
Subject:
Intervention in NRC Adjudicatory Proceedings. (1 cy) v c ~~ ~
- d. - SECY-81-lllB, Policy Issue Paper dated 49 April 27, 1981,
Subject:
Intervention in NRC p h Adjudicatory Proceedings. (1 cys). g /.7,. e dWcM -ifa $ $g O?
- 3 m
MAY 151981> $ p brown a Office of the Secretary ) uis. m y u mmarass Q 'M C6 N c q DI a ca= ~ c m s. s c>- l s. f,fffff f. f h h h_ _fffh
- fff
- ffh h
,fi}fhh,ffh f h <}}