ML20133C192

Annual Rept of Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel, for FY87

ML20133C192
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/30/1987
From:	Cotter B Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
Shared Package
ML20133C190	List: ML20133C187 ML20133C192
References
NUDOCS 9701070068
Download: ML20133C192 (36)

Text

._ __ _.. ._.. _ _. . _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . . . - _ . _

t e- *. . j l

1

'l l

l A N N U A ,L' REP 0RT OF THE i

ATOMIC- SAFETY AND LICENSING l B0ARD PANEL .

l -

l l

. i l

l l

For The Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1987 l

l l

B. Paul Cotter, Jr.

Chief Administrative Judge t

I l

l 9701070068 871231 ,

PDR COMMS NRCC  !

CORRESPONDENCE PDR '

i I

l 1

l ANNUAL REPORT i l l l OF THE l t

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL l

l For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1987 Table of Contents Page EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

....................... ES-1

,A . Overview ...................... ES-1 B. Docket Data ..................... ES-1 C. Admi n i s t ra ti o n . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2

1. ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1

II. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY: HEARING EFFICIENCIES ............. 1 A. Fiscal Year 1987 Caseload Overview . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. Public Health and Safety Decisions . . . . . . . . . . 3 l

1. OPERATING LICENSES ............... 3

a. Full Power Decisions ............ 3

b. Low Power Decisions ............ 4  !

c. Other Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ,

2. SHOW CAUSE .-.................. 7

3. CIVIL PENALTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4

4. MATERIALS LICENSES ............... 8

5. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 C. Hearing Efficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9'

.. n -.,

-j

+

, u .

1 l

l i

Page l

1. Computerized Record .............. 10

2. Single Presiding Officer ............' 10

~

a. Waste Disposal ......... ...... 10

b. Super-Compactor / Incinerator . . . . . . . . . 11

! 3. Hybrid Hearing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4

, 4. Summary Disposition .............. 11

5. Sanctions ................... 11 4

j 6. Reconstitutions ................ 12 4

III. PERSONNEL AND SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 A. Administrative Judges ................ 12 l

F. Professional Activities ............... 13 l L. Professional.and Support Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1. Legal Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 l

2. Administrative Staff .............. 16

$ IV. IMPROVEMENTS IN HEARING ADMINISTRATION .......... 17 l j A. General ....................... 17 B. Computerized Proceeding Records ........... 17 C. Court Reporting Contract .............. 19 V. CONCLUSION ........................ - 19 Appendix A: General and Historical Statistical Data Appendix B: Licensing Panel Professional Personnel Appendix C: Organization Chart

i ;-

4 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

$ A. Overview Fiscal Year 1987 marked the first full year of transi-tion in the subject matter of the Panel's hearing work eight years after the Three Mile Island event. Only.12 of the 52

cases on the docket concerned construction permits and operating licenses. Over 75% of the> cases concerned issues arising out of the continuing operation of 108 nuclear power plants, 8,500 materials licenses, and other facilities.

Nevertheless, three nuclear power plant units were approved for full power licenses during the year. That brought to 40 the number of such units approved by Atomic

< Safety and Licensing Boards since Three Mile Island.

Proceedings concerning five units remained on the docket at

the close of FY 1987.

The remaining operating license cases increased sub-stantially in size and complexity, requiring either multiple I

boards to deal with one case or an extraordinary) number ofhearing days (e.g. 97

. More significantly for the future, new filings for 11

different types of cases in FY 1986 increased 20% over the average number of new cases filed in the preceding five years. Despite a reduction in personnel over the prior year, the Panel's judges completed a slightly larger number of cases and reduced the average age of all cases on the docket.

In anticipation of further FTE reductions in FY 1988

, and 1989, the Panel stepped up efforts during FY 1987 to establish its Computer Assistance Project (CAP) to attain the efficiencies achievable through automation. A pilot project in the Diablo Canyon case established a prototype system for computer capture of the full-text of the record for decision, a system that will be a first of its kind in

the country when completed.

Highlights of the report are as follows

B. Docket Data O CASELOAD: New cases filed in FY 1987 increased 20%

over the average for the last five years.

1 Some $44 billion worth of new power plants ES-1

e 4 l

I were considered in 11 operating license .

proceedings concerning 14 units. The remain-ing 41 proceedings on the docket were of 11 <

different types, the' largest single category  :

being license amendments.

0 OPERATING LICENSES: Licensing Board's authorized operation of three nuclear power plant units '

by Initial Decisions: Braidwood, and Vogtle, Units 1 and 2. There were five operating

~

license boards addressing issues concerning five units at the close of FY 1987.

O CONTENTIONS: For all operating license cases on the docket, 94% of the contentions were resolved before trial,, leaving only 6% for hearing.

0 HEARINGS: The Licensing Panel held 115 days of hearings (92 trial days and 23 prehearing conference days), repr'esenting over 300 Administrative Judge hearing days.

O TIME ON DOCKET: The average age of all cases on I the docket during the fiscal year (as of ,

September 30, 1987) was 22 months, a very j significant decrease of 19% over FY 1986.

The average age of all operating license cases on the docket was 50 months, a 14% i decrease over last year.

O' ENFORCEMENT: There were six enforcement pro-ceedings, including two appeals from civil penalties on the. docket during the year.

In separate proceedings involving the same licensee, appeals were taken from an order i suspending the license and an order to decontaminate.

O COMPLETED PROCEEDINGS: Of 52 proceedings (including three cases with multiple boards) on-the docket during the year, 25, or 48% of all proceedings were completed.

C. Administration 0 STAFFING: Panel personnel ranged from a high of 40 full-time to a low of 35 by the end of FY ES-2 ,

1

~

l l

l l

1987 (plus ' 23 part-time Administrative Judges  ;

available when needed). Three of the 20 '

full-time judges retired or resigned by I year's end, reducing the number of engin,eer/ l physicists to three. The average age of the i Panel's full-time Administrative Judges is '

now 58. Some nine of the Panel's part-time judges served in eight proceedings during the '

4 year. This valuable resource has shrunk substantially in recent years, from 44 in 1978 to 23 today. 1 0 COMPUTER ASSISTANCE PROJECT: The Panel made substantial progress in the Computer Assis-tance Project (CAP) through vigorous ASLBP personnel training and development activity supported by ARM. The CAP program uses

, off-the-shelf PCs and software to fully 1

automate in electronic form record capture, information processing, record searching, legal research, and decision writing in individual cases. During the year, the

, Diablo Canyon rerack proceeding, a test case. l captured electronically a substantial portion of the record for decision. The CAP system expedites the hearing process as a whole, particularly large individual, impacted cases. The office should be fully automated well before the Monitored Retrievable Storage

! and High Level Waste Repository cases are filed.

3 This Annual Report records improvements in virtually every statistical measure of hearing management. Licensing Panel reforms in hesring management continue to bring a high degree of efficiency and expertise to the Commission's complex, multi-party litigation. Projections of caseload and staff resource needs in the Five-Year Plan sent the Commission in March,_1985 were essentially confirmed by 3 actual experience in FY 1987, although that forecast under-estimated the total caseload by 18%.

I ES-3

i l

l l

l I. ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION

, The Office of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l Panel is comprised of Administrative Law Judges and legal

! and technical Administrative Judges who sit alone and in l three member boards to hear and decide a broad variety .of .

l cases. Technical Judges are assigned, whenever possible, to l cases in which their professional expertise will assist the l -board in resolving the particular types of issues to be i litigated. Generally, boards consist of a lawyer chairman, a nuclear engineer or reactor physicist, and an environmental scientist.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 requires that a public hearing be held on every application for a construction  !

permit for a nuclear power plant or related facility, 42 '

U.S.C. 2239, 2241 (1985). The Act and implementing l regulations may also require adjudicatory hearings in 14 l other types ;f proceedings: (1) antitrust; (2) civil penalty; (3) decommissioning; (4) enforcement; (5) high level waste; (6) low level waste; (7) license amendment; (8) manufacturing permit; (9) materials license; (10) operating )

license; (11) operator's license; (12) remand; (13) spent fuel pool and transshipment; and (14) special proceedings.

Individuals, national and local organizations, and state and I local governments participate in particular licensing or enforcement matters adjudicatad by an independent tribunal.

These hearings are the Commission's principal public forum for resolving contested health and safety concerns. The decisions of the Licensing Panel become the final decision of the agency in virtually all cases.

The hearing on a particular application for a nuclear facility license may be divided into several phases:

(1) health, safety, and the common defense and security aspects of the application, as required by the Atomic Energy Act; (2) environmental considerations as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and (3) emergency planning requirements. These matters, as well as especially complex technical issues, were treated by boards-in 52 proceedings during Fiscal Year 1987.

II. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY: HEARING EFFICIENCIES A. Fiscal Year 1987 Caseload Overview During the fiscal year ended September 30, 1987, i

Licensing Boards heard issues concerning nuclear power

_ _ _ ~___ .-

l l

l t

l plants and other nuclear facilities with a value well in excess of $61 billion. Some 48 percent of all proceedings i were_ completed. Three member Licensing Boards held 115 days ,

l of hearings (92 days of' trial and 23 days of prehearing.

conferences). Closed proceedings included six operating license cases, four enforcement proceedings, six operating license amendments, and nine other proceedings. The operation of three nek nuclear power plant units was authorized (Braidwood, and Vogtle Units 1 and 2).  ;

1 In the last seven years, the Panel has completed a total of 162 of the most difficult.and complex proceedings in administrative litigation. Five operating license proceedings addressing five units remained to be completed ,

at the end of the fiscal year.  !

Eighteen new cases were opened in Fiscal Year 1987, a 20% increase over the average number of new cases filed in the' preceding five years. The increase in new cases filed i reflects a shift toward more numerous, less protracted cases  !

of greater diversity. This trend is expected to continue over the next five years.  !

Fiscal year 1987 saw an expansion in the use of informal proceedings presided over by a single judge in materials licensing cases. Five such pro:eedings were closed during the year. The Panel established a policy in 1 these cases of assigning an administrative judge as advisor to the presiding officer to supplement either legal or technical expertise as needed. The Panel judges who have participated in these informal hearings have, by sharing their experiences, developed efficient methods for conducting and defining this new form of adjudication. They have also contributed to OGC's effort to draf t informal hearing rules, encouraging a combination of simplicity and thoroughness.

At the same time, however, the Panel has begun the extensive advance planning process required to handle what will be the largest cases in its history, and perhaps the largest Federal Administrative Procedure Act cases ever:

hearings on DOE's application to construct a Monitored Retrievable Storage facility and a High Level Nuclear Waste

. Repository. Judc3 Ivan Smith and David Prestemon, the Panel's Legal Counsel, were members of the NRC negotiating committee assisting in the negotiated rulemaking to establish a computerized, full text discovery database for the HLW proceeding. A score of well-funded intervening i

parties art prepared to participate in that case, currently I

,~

. . a A

estimated to involve more than 16 million documents. The

• Panel's efforts to expand its ability to utilize sophisticated computer systems for document and hearing management will be essential to Licensing Board respon-sibility in this massive proceeding.

B. Public Health and Safety Decisions

1. OPERATING LICENSES

a. Full Power Decisions BRAIDWOOD In partial initial decisions issued May 13 and May 19, 1987, the Board resolved emergency planning and quality assprance issues in favor of the applicant and authorized a full power license.

. The May 13 decision on two emergency planning conten-tions dealt primarily with the wording and distribution of the applicant's emergency information booklet. The Board found no deficiencies in the booklet or the plans for its dissemination serious enough to preclude license issuance.

It did, however, find that a better explanation of tie relationship between a radioactive plume, weather condi-tions, and the selection of optimum evacuation routes should be included. The Board ordered as a condition of license authorization that a discussion of those topics be incorporated in the next annual revision of the booklet.

The Board's May 19 decision dealt with extensive claims of intimidation and harassment of quality control inspectors. This phase of the Braidwood OL proceeding required nearly 100 hearing days over two fiscal years; encompassed the oral testimony of some 60 witnesses; and resulted in a record of approximately 18,000 pages including over 500 exhibits.

The majority of the Board, in a 2-1 decision found considerable evidence of production pressure. However, the majority was convinced by the testimony of the inspectors who appeared as witnesses that that pressure did not have any effect on job performance.

With respect to the ultimate question of whether there was a sufficiently large breakdown in c"ality assurance procedures to preclude a finding of " reasonable assurance" of safety to the public, the Board concluded that there had

l i

not been. Their finding was buttressed by the results of two large and independent reinspection programs which statistically confirmed the adequacy of the QC inspectors' performance. Commonwealth Edison Co., 25 NRC ,

(LBP-87-14, 1987) (Judges Grossman, Cole and CaTTThan).

~

V0GTLE In a Concluding Partial Initial Decision, the Vogtle Board found that licenses authorizing operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant should be issued. The Board ruled that applicants provided assurance that certain l models of solenoid valves that are used to perform l safety-related functions are environmentally qualified.

Georgia Power Company, 24 NRC 901 (LBP-86-41, 1986) (Judges l Margulies Linenberger and Paris).

. LIMERICK In a supplement to its fourth partial initial decision, l the Limerick Licensing Board found that arrangements in effect at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Pennsylvania for the notification and mobilization of off-duty correctional officers in a radiological emergency were adequate to meet the requirements of NRC regulations.

The ruling resolved the final pending issue in Limerick, an issue that had been remanded by the Appeal Board, and eliminated the last hearing obstacle to a full power license. Philadelphia Electric Co. , 24 NRC 731 (LBP-86-38, 1986).

b. Low Power Decisions SEABROOK In a March 1987 Partial Initial Decision, the Board authorized issuance of a license to operate Seabrook Station Unit 1 up to 5% of rated power. It resolved three on-site emergency planning and safety contentions relating to: (a)

Applicants' emergency classification and action level scheme; (b) electrical equipment environmental qualification time duration; and (c) Applicants' safety parameter display

- system (SPDS). The low-power license authorization was contingent upon applicants' prior development of maintenance procedures to insure an adequate level of oil continuously present in the riser assemblies associated with the containment water level transmitters. The decision remained on appeal at the end of the Fiscal Year.

(1) Safety Parameter Display System The Board also ordered that, if a Seabrook full-power operating license ultimately is authorized by the Licensing Board considering of f-site emergency planning issues, Applicants must: (1) have dedicated the Safety Parameter -

Display System terminal so that a continuous display of the '

Critical Safety Functions will be achieved or, by means of a test function and test computer, have provi3ed an SPDS display on every cathode ray tube format in the control room to continuously display the SPDS top level display; (2) have provided for continuous display of residual heat removal and hydrogen concentration critical safety function variables at the prime SPDS station; and (3) have established a rrdiological control screen at the prime SPDS station which, at a minimum, can be called up by the operator and will display steam line radiation and stack radiation parameters.

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 25 NRC 177 (LBP-87-10, 1987). (Judges Wolfe, Harbour and Luebke)

(2) Financial Qualifications Waiver l Intervenors in the Seabrook proceeding filed a petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.758 seeking a waiver of 59 50.33(f) and 50.57(a)(4) to require Applicants, prior to any authorization to operate at low power, to demonstrate financial qualifications to operate and decommission the Seabrook facility. Petitioners argued that, were a low power operating license to be authorized, special circumstances would justify the waiver because of the likely bankruptcy of the lead owner, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH).

On August 20, 1987, the Licensing Board denied the petition on three grounds. First, one petitioner had no standing and the other two were not properly represented before the Board. Second (citing the Statement of Considerations for the current rule), the Eoard concluded that: (1) the purpose of the rule was to exempt operating license applicants from the financial qualification requirement because the state ratemaking process assured that funds needed for safe operations would be available; and (2) the Commission had not implicitly or expressly

. stated that an operating license applicant's financial distress and possible bankruptcy were special circumstances which would result in an exception or waiver under 6 2.758.

Third, even assuming that PSNH's financial problems could be deemed to be special circumstances, the Board found that the dire results predicted by the petitioners were wholly

. 1 4

speculative--e.g., even if PSNH filed in bankruptcy, petitioners had not presented any reason suggesting that any successor to PSNH (be it a reorganized company, or an acquiring company, or a trustee in bankruptcy) would not persevere in efforts to secure a full power operating

. license, put the plant into commercial operation, and thereby recover the large investment at stake through its inclusion in the rate base. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 26 NRC (LBP-87-12, 1987).

(3) EPZ Waiver In a Seabrook issue of first impression, the Licensing Board on April 22, 1987 found that Applicants' petition for a waiver of the regulations required by 10 C.F.R. 9 2.758, was not met. Applicants sought a waiver of planning for a plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone in excess of a one-mile radius. They f ailed to make the prima f acie showing on its technical merits that .the waiver should be granted. The Board held that the prima facie showing required the Board to determine whether the petition for waiver, with its accompanying affidavits, balanced against the resources of the other parties, presented legally sufficient evidence to justify the waiver request. Finding no such evidence, the Board held that the petition could not be considered further. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 25 NRC 324 (LBP-87-12, 1987) (Judges Hoyt, Harbour and Linenberger)

c. Other Decisions In Shoreham the Licensing Board denied Applicant's motion for summary disposition of the " legal authority" issues. LILCO based its motion on a " realism" argument that state, county and local officials could realistic:lly be assumed to respond in the event of an actual emergency.

LILCO argued that this response would render immaterial the

- utility employees' lack of legal authority to carry out certain emergency functions under New York state law. In its Memorandum and Order, the Licensing Board reviewed the applicable law on summary disposition, and interpreted rulings made by the Commission in CLI-86-13, involving the remand of the " realism" argument as it pertains to the

" legal authority" issues and'the effect on the motion for summary disposition. The Board found that LILCO had not met the requirements of the summary disposition rule. This decision cleared the way for a full hearing on the " realism" .

- - _ J

4 4 r

- . . , l l

l a rgument . Long Island Lighting Co., 26 NRC (LBP-87-26, 1987) (Judges Margulies, Aline and Shon).

In two other proceedings, Licensing Boards approved the

' withdrawal of license applications for Marble Hill, Units 1  !

and 2, Public Service Co. cf Indiana, Inc., 24.NRC 719 (LBP-86-37, 1986) (Judges Smith, Linenberger and Paris)s, and Midland, Units 1 and 2, Censumers Power Co. , 24 NRC 834 (LBP-86-39,, 1987) (Judges 5echhoef er, Harbour and Linenberger).

i 1 2. SHOW CAUSE 4

In the Sheffield show cause proceeding the Licensing Board denied a motion by U.S. Ecology for summary disposi-tion. This was the first ruling addressing whether a repos-itory licensee could unilaterally terminate its obligations j

as to buried low level waste where the governing regulation was amended after the orig'nal license was granted. U.S.

Ecology, Inc. , 25 NRC 98 (.5P-87-5,1987) (Judges Cotter, i

Kline and Luebke). The de:ision was later vacated by the Appeal Board when Illinois :ecame an agreement state. U.S.

i Ecology, Inc., 25 NRC (ALAB-866, 1987).

3.  ::VI'. PENALTY l

THI-2 (Inter ';ency Subpoena)

In a June 22, 1987 Me :randum and Order in a civil penalty proceeding related :o THI-2, the Administrative Law I Judge denied a motion by tre Department of Labor (DOL) to a

quash a deposition subpoena to a retired 00L employee. This unusual case involved "wh15:leblower" retaliation allegations over which the SRC and 00L have concurrent i

jurisdiction. The Board held that the regulations invoked by DOL to preclude testimorf by its former investigator were

" housekeeping" in natu re, i . tended only to permit the Department to control the a:pearance of its employees 4

pursuant to the demands of litigants. They were not, and could not be intended to a.:horize 00L to withhold relevant, discoverable information; and, in any event, they were inapplicable to a now reti-ed employee. General Public Utilities Nuclear Corp., 25 NRC (ALJ-87-5, 1987) l (Juoge Ivan Smith).

1 i

4

_ ~ - .. . - - . = - . .. -. - . --- . --.-

i

=

V Hurley Medical Center l

(Severity Level Violations)

, On March 3, 1987, the presiding Administrative Law 1

Judge issued an Initial Decision imposing-a civil penalty on Hurley Medical Center, a community hospital in Flint, R

Michigan. In doing so. Judge Ivan Smith aggregated several Severity, Level IV violations into a single Severity Level III violation because the separate violations evidenced a general failure to exert adequate management and control over the Licensee's radiation safety program. Hurley Medical Center, 25 NRC 219 (ALJ-87-2, 1987) (Judge Ivan Smith).

4. MATERIALS LICENSES ,

. i (Manufacturer's Emergency Response Plan) i t

l l .

After considering numerous filings and conducting a three-day oral hearing, the Presiding Officer in Sequoyah authorized the issuance of a license amendment permitting Sequoyah Fuels Corporation (SFC), a subsidiary of Kerr-McGee  ;

Cnrporation, to operate its facility to convert depleted uranium hexafluoride to depleted uranium tetrafluoride at its Gore, Oklahoma, plant. The authorization was subject to four conditions: (1) to ensure that the automatic telephone

, emergency notification system will function properly, SFC l was required to verify that all residences within a two-mile radius of the facility have telephones and make provisions acceptable to Staff to notify any that do not; (2) SFC was required to verify that all telephone numbers listed in its emergency response plan are accurate at each major exercise of the plan; (3) SFC is to maintain the level of staffing outlined in its testimony presented at the hearing and to promptly report any changes in the duties of those individuals to Staff; and (4) SFC's President and its General Manager are each to spend at least one full workday each month at the facility while it is in operation.

Sequoyah Fuels Corp., 25 NRC 153 (LBP-87-3, 1987) (Judge-John Frye).

L

l

! l

5. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS l THI-1 (Employee Suspension Conditions)

In a specici proceeding arising from the ihree Mile Island, Unit 1, restart, the Administrative Law Judge sustained a license condition imposed as part of the Appeal Board's decision on management related issues, ALAB-772, 19 NRC 1193,'1224 (1984). The condition barred an employee of

. the licensee from supervisory responsibilities in the training of nonlicensed personnel at the plant. The Appeal Board's decision held that the employee's conduct and attitude toward the NRC regulatory process required that he not be permitted to serve in a supervisory position that affects public health and safety. j I

The Judge noted that Commission regulations do not address qualifications for the position in question --

Supervisor, Nonlicensed Operator Training. However, where the holder of that position may adversely affect public health and safety because of attitudes and behavior toward the NRC and the regulatory process, the Commission can act to provide retsonable assurance that the activities authorized by the operating license will be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public.

This is so even if the result is to disqualify an individual from being employed in a particular category.

4 The Judge further found that the condition was not imposed as a sanction, nor was its purpose to forever bar the employee from that position. Rather, the condition was imposed to provide reasonable assurance for the protection of public health and safety. The employee can regain the position in question, if he demonstrates that he is qualified to meet its requirements. _ General Public Utilities Nuclear, 25 NRC 345 (ALJ-87-3, 1987) (Judge Morton Margulies).

C. Hearing Efficiencies Within the context of the Commission's Rules of Practice and general requirements of fairness, Licensing Boards are frequently called upon to adapt procedures to the peculiar needs of specific cases in order to achieve efficiency and economy. The following are a few examples of such procedural innovations during Fiscal Year 1986.

4

.g.

3

1. Computerized Record For the first time, in a May 22, 1987 Memorandum and Order, the Diablo Canyon Licensing Board required parties to submit computer readable diskettes with their hard copy' filings. The Board sought to expedite the proceeding by.

~

capturing three categories of record materials, namely: (1) prefiled testimony; (2) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (3) the transcript of the hearing.

The electronic capture assisted the parties and the Board by making available a full text, electronically searchable record to aid and expedite the preparation of findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Initial Decision. 1. 9 Order was a first step in automating the hearing process in preparation for the massive high level waste proceeding.

Pacific Gas and Electric Co., unpublished, May 22, 1987.

(Judges Cotter, Harbour and Linenberger).

2. Single Presiding Officer

a. Waste Disposal In the Davis-Besse proceeding on waste disposal, the single presiding officer upheld the decision of the Staff to grant Licensee's applicanton to dispose of water treatment sludge and secondary side demineralizer resins by land burial at the site of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.

The judge held that reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and environment will be protected when waste is buried can be found if: (a) secure confinement of waste at its burial location is assured, even if the waste is a significant source of radioactive or chemically toxic constituents; or (b) the waste itself is not a significant source of hazardous materials, even if the conditions of confinement are not so secure as to guarantee that nothing would escape from the burial site in the future.

The Panel established as a matter of policy in single presiding officer cases that a technical advisor will be -

assigned if the presiding officer is an Administrative Judge (Legal) and a legal advisor will be assigned if the presid-ing officer is an Administrative Judge (Technical). Conse-quent ly, the judge used a technical member of the Panel to assist in formulating precisely the questions to be address-ed by the parties, thereby eliminating issues extraneous to the development of an adequate record. Toledo Edison Co.,

'-~

25 NRC 287 (LBP-87-11, 1987) (Judges Hoyt and Kline).

l l

i

~

4 d

b. Super-Compactor / Incinerator The Presiding Officer in the Parks Township case

, authorized the Staf f to issue a license amendment to operate a super-compactor immediately. However, the judge also ruled that the Staff could not issue a license. amendment'to -

operate an incinerator at the same site until further testing demonstrates that the incinerator will meet the licensee's criteria for safe operation. The 100-page

, decision concluded the first informal materials license proceeding heard, decided, and written by a Panel Judge who was not a lawyer. Judge Paris who has 10 years of hearing experience with the Panel was assisted by Judge Bechhoefer who acted as legal advisor to the Presiding Officer.  ;

Babcock and Wilcox, 24 NRC 841 (LBP-86-40, 1986) (Judge j Oscar Paris).

3. Hybrid Hearing Procedures i I

For the first time since they were adopted two years  ;

ago, hybrid hearing procedures have been invoked by i petitioners in the Vermont Yankee spent fuel pool expansion proceeding. Multiple intervenors and contentions have now been admitted so that the hybrid procedures should get their first full-scale test during the 1983 fiscal year (Judges Bechhoefer, Bright and Carpenter).

1 i

Summary Disposition 4.

In the Turkey Point operating license amendment proceeding, the Board's March 25, 1987 ruling on Licensee's motions for summary disposition eliminated five ef intervenors' contentions, leaving only two for litigation.

1987.

j- Florida (JudgesPower & Light Lazo, Cole andCo.,

Luebkeunp)ublished,

. In theMarch Vogtle25, proceeding, 14 of the 17 contentions were resolved by summary j disposition. (Judges Margulies, Linenberger and Paris).

5. Sanctions Braidwood In the emergency planning phase of the Braidwood

operating license proceeding, the parties litigated six contentions concerned with the Applicant's plans for informing the public within the EPZ of the steps to be taken l e ,

i l

1 l

l l in the event of an emergency, prior to the occurrence of an accident. However, four of the contentions were dismissed by the Board prior to decision because intervenors failed to  ;

file proposed findings of fact as directed. Commonwealth I Edison Co., 25 NRC (LBP-87-13, 1987). (Judges Grossman, Cole, and Callihan).

Seabrook i

On October 7, 1986, the Seabrook Board affirmed

, sanctions imposed on nine cities and towns as a result of their failure to answer interrogatories despite repeated requests and Board orders. The sanctions precluded the towns from presenting direct testimony or cross-examining any witness proffered by other parties-in this proceeding.

The Board added that it would not consider any written l pleadings or direct or cross-examination testimony. Two '

towps that had shown at least some good cause for their f ailures to respond were granted partial reprieves f rom the sanctions. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, 24 NRC 549 (LBP-86-34, 1986). I

6. Reconstitutions Ten proceedings were reconstituted during .he year to avoid delay resultant from individual board member's schedule conflicts with other cases. See, e.g., In the Matter of Suffolk County, et al., 24 NRC 726 (LBP-86-37A, 1986).

III. PERSONNEL AND SUPPORT A. Administrative Judges The intensity and complexity of NRC proceedings has rendered essential the effective management of the logistics of the hearing process. During FY 1987, some 29 Administrative Judges, sitting alone and in three member Boards successfully completed 48 percent of the cases on the docket.

During the Fiscal Year, the Panel had available a total of 44 Administrative Judges (21 full-time and 23 part-time).

By profession the judges included 15 lawyers, 14 environ-l mental scientists, six engineers, five physicists, one medical doctor, one geologist, one economist and one j chemist. See Appendix B. The judges were appointed to the l

. . +~

4 -

l Licensing-Panel by the Commission based.upon recognized experience.. achievement and independence in the appointee's

field. Collectively, they held 89-graduate degrees,

! including 25 Ph.D's. Several part-time members are or have l been heads of departments at major universities.

l . Unfortunately, ths Panel lost three full-lime. members and one part-time msmber during the. year. . Judge Herbert

, Grossman resigned to take a position as an Administrative Law Judge at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Judges James Kelley retired to enter private practice, and Judge Emmeth Luebke converted to part-time status.

, Part-time member Quentin J. Stober resigned in October 1986 to take a position with the Environmental Protection Agency.

A continuing cause of concern is the 42% reduction in Panel personnel in the last two fiscal years. The Panel's total authorized staffing has been cut deeply from 52 as of

~

October 1, 1984 to 30 as of October 1, 1987.

l Consequently, the Panel's total number of judges has shrunk from a high of 68 in 1982 to 41 at the end of FY 1987 (18 full-time and 23 part-time). As noted, further losses are expected in FY 1988. The Panel's historical strength, a l large corps of senior, experienced administrative judges with expertise'in multiple disciplines continees to wane.

No new judges have been appointed to the Panel in six years.

The average age of the Panel's 18 full-time Administrative Judges is now 58, and 11 of the 18 are, or will, be eligible to retire in the next two years. The average age of the Panel's part-time judges is significantly higher.

B. Professional Activities Members of the' Panel have continued to participate I actively in professional associations, sharing their expertise with their colleagues and sharpening their own skills through continuing professional education. The experience of the Panel in handling complex and i controversial administrative litigation has been particularly sought out by organizations concerned with

. judicial administration and the practice of administrative law.

The National Judicia' Jollege presented Judge Cotter t with a plaque for five years of service to judicial i education. He c gated and has presented the College's j course on " Managing the Complex Case" since 1983. The

l

]

N course has been attended by over 150 judges. from every state, several territories and two foreign countries. As a l

! result of his involvement, Judge Cotter was also asked by

, the College to attend the first National Conference on

j Judicial Education held in Williamsburg, Virginia in Ja'nuary 1987 as one of the College's representatives. _The

Conference was attended by representatives of national and state judicial education organizations, law professors,

judges, the American Bar Association, and state supreme

court justices, j In other bar association activities, Judge Cotter served as Chairman of the ABA Conference of Administrative Law Judges Ethics Committee, and was asked to serve on the Judicial Administration Division committee which will help in preparing a new code of judicial conduct. He was appointed Chairman of the Committee on Program and the Annual Meeting for the ABA's Judicial Administration Division, which is responsible for preparing five educational programs for the U.S. and Canadian judiciary at the ABA annual meeting in August 1988

He also sooke at the Annual ALI-ABA course-on nuclear regulation held in Washington in September, attended the annual meeting of the Federal Bar Association in which he serves as Vice-Chair of the Judiciary Section, and was a keynote speaker at the National Conference of Regulatory Attorneys.

At the ABA Midyear Meeting in February 1987, both l Judges Bechhoefer and Cotter addressed reform of the i Government in the Sunshine Act. Both spoke in favor of a l resolution recommending elimination of casual discussions, i certain briefings, and general and exploratory discussions from the interpretation of the terra " meeting" as used in the Government in the Sunshine Act. The resolution was ultimately adopted by the ABA House of Delegates.

In April 1987, Judge Lazo attended the American Nuclear Society's conference on " Theory and Practices in Radiation i Protection and Shielding." Judges Bloch and Wolfe attended a seminar on expediting hearings offered by the Board of i L:1. tract Appeals Judges Association. I i

Judge Cole attended the American Society of Civil

. Engineers Meeting on Water Supply and Sanitation in May 1987 as one of 350 v 'er experts gathered from around the giree.

The conference h.J four. themes: Human Resources; Finar.te and Economics; Technology and Engineering; and Operations and Maintenance. Judge Cole chaired the session on Finance 1

4

and Economics. During.the year, he also served as secretary-treasurer of the U.S. section of the 1

Inter-American Association of Sanitary Engineers.

Judge Morris represented the Panel at the June An'nual Meeting of the American Nuclear Society, and Judge Kline was elected president of the DOE /NRC Chapter of Sigma Psi, the national honorary society of scientists.

Judges Bechhoeft , Cotter and Margulies attended the i

annual meeting of the American Bar Association in August 1987. Judges Hoyt and Smith participated in the 12th Annual

Symposium of the National Conference of Administrative Law Judges. In addition, Judge Bechhoefer took part in a 4 colloquy presented by the Administra+,1ve Conference of the United States concerning Administrative Law Judges.

In September 1987, Judge Carpenter attended a seminar entitled, " Radiation Fundamentals for Lawyers", presented by j

1 the School of Public Health at Harvard University, a unique opportunity to view radioactivity hazards issues from the perspective of lay litigants rather than that of engineers and scientists. Judge Paris took part in a two-day i

symposium at Georgetown University on " Nuclear Radiation and Public Health Practices in the Post-Chernobyl World".

C. Professional and Support Staff Historically, Licensing Boards were supported in the hearing effort by a staff organized into three areas:

(1) legal support; (2) technical support; and (3) administration and computer support. The law clerk component of the Panel's legal support was terminated because of budget cuts.* Technical support had been furnished in the past by a reactor safety engineer and a The Panel is the only major Administrative Procedure Act hearing activity in the Federal Government that has no law clerks. The law clerk program established in 1981 but cor.cluded in 1986, had proven a vital asset to the efficient and expeditious completion of the most difficult cases. The law clerks, all of whom were practicing attorneys from the NRC Honor Law Graduate Program, had assisted administrative judges in conducting hearing. by performing legal research and drafting memoranda and orders for the Boards, and (Footnote Continued) 1

health scientist, but both positions were vacated in 1984 and have not been filled because of personnel ceiling limitations. Consequently, the Panel has had to use Administistive Judges (Technical), when and if available, to perform tnose functions. '

l l 1

1. Legal Staff In 1987, the Panel had one second year law student serve a 45-day internship and one summer law clerk. Conse-quently, the Panel's sole, full-time legal support was fur-nished in FY 1987 by the Panel's Chief Counsel. He furnish-  !

ed advice, legal research, and other assistance to Boards in i 6

individual cases (particularly impacted cases) and the Chief i

Administrative Judge on a broad range of legal matters.

2. Administrative Staff 1

Administrative support is furnished under the direction of the Director and Assistant Director of the Program i Support and Analysis Staff. See Appendix C. They provide all analyses and support for office matters such as budget, personnel, support of part-time Panel members, labor

relations, travel, space and facilities at headquarters and in hearings around the country, training, FOI A, license fee data, security, and contracts. These two officers have

, primary responsibility, agency-wide, for the NRC's court reporting contract used in all official proceedings except the Commissioners.

The Chief of the Information Processing Section reports to the Director and Assistant Director. The section is responsible for developing and implementing computerized systems to support both Panel administration and individual proceedings. ADP, paralegal work, stenographic, court reporting contract, and field services support are carried out by a small staff of paralegals, legal secretaries, and information specialists.

(Footnote Continued) furnishing a variety of other legal services. Law clerks were appointed to two-year terms ar.d then moved on to permanent positions in or outside of the Commission.

l l

1 1

Two of the Panel's staff served on NRC Committees. H Olivia Sweeney served as Secretary of the NRC Committee on i Age Discrimination, and Elva W. Leins was a member of the '

NRC's Federal Women's Program. Mrs. Leins also serves,as an i Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor.

4 l'

The entire Panel support staff, reduced f' rom 18 to 16 during the year, rendered yeoman service throughout the year.

1 IV. IMPROVEMENTS IN HEARING ADMINISTRATION a

A. General Administrative support for the boards and the Panel has been automated. Systems and equipment include IBM Personal l' Computers and word processors, the LEXIS and WESTLAW automated legal research systems, and a computerized travel and timekeeping system. An internal computerized Hearing l Status Report now has a virtually complete data base and is  !

capable of generating valuable case management information. l Virtually all ASLBP computer work was transferred during the year f rom the NIH mainf rame to the Panel's personal computers. The conversion has had two principal benefits: (1) elimination of almost $10,000 per year in storage and use charges; and (2) increased flexibility, speed, and usefulness of reports created through in-house programming and production. The Panel is consolidating and revising data bases to obtain more accurate evcluations and analyses of operations and management.

B. Computerized Proceeding Records The Panel's Computer Assistance Project (CAP) to expedite large cases made major strides during the year.

The CAP system was designed to realize and expand upon the benefits flowing from computerization of the Indian Point hearing transcript in 1983. The purpose of the CAP system is to capture, electronically, the full text of the record for decision in complex cases. In place at the outset of a larne case, the CAP system permits, as needed: (1) electronic filing; (2) computerized transcripts, prefiled testimony, and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for enormously expedited record searches; (3) shortened hearings; and (4) faster and more complete decision making. -

By using resources for the most part already in place, the cost-benefit ratio for large cases is substantial.

i

9 The CAP system'has four components: (1) the judges' equipment; (2) office equipment; (3) a computerized, full-text hearing transcript; and (4) electronic filing of selected documents by the parties. By January 1988, each judge will have an IBM XT personal computer with a 20 megabyte hard disk, a printer, and a modum. Each judge will

, also have the sof tware necessary for word processing, legal

research through LEXIS and WESTLAW, XTALK for sending and receiving orders, memoranda, and pleadings, and the software necessary to electronically search large records. The office is now equipped with a COMPAQ 386 personal computer with a 130 megabyte hard disk, a Bernoulli Box for electronic storage of large records, a COMPAQ Portable III with a 40 megabyte hard disk, a Hewlett-Packard laserjet printer, and Bluefish, a full-text search program that can find any reference in a 15,000 page transcript in two seconds. The ASLBP court reporting contract provides for computer. readable diskettes of the transcript of the hearing in large, complex cases. In the appropriate case, parties are directed to file findings of f act, conclusions of law, and prefiled testimony on computer readable diskettes. Such filings are in ASCII to overcome the problem of incompatible computers. The Licensing Panel expects to complete the system in FY 1989 by networking the judges personal computers to the COMPAQ 386 which can act as a file server enabling judges to search for specific record citations in records of over 10,000 pages using the Bluefish program resident on the COMPAQ. The total cost of the CAP system is approximately $5,000.00 per jduge.

The CAP system enables a judge, without leaving his or her computer, to draft an Initial Decision, search a large record, conduct legal research, and integrate the draf t with the work of the other two judges on the Licensing Board.

The Shoreham, Braidwood, and TMI-2 " Leak Rate" Licensing Boards reported that time spent searching transcripts for appropriate citations was reduced by a factor as much as 20.

In addition, the CAP system helps compensate for the loss of law clerks and the reduction in Licensing Panel secretarial support. The resolution of large, complex summary disposition motions (often the equivalent of a case within a case) will be substantially expedited by CAP. Time lost at hearings to search for documents and witnesses will be sharply reduced because the judges, using the portable COMPAQ can find a particular document among 10,000 pages of material in a matter of seconds.

Because the CAP system is both highly cost effective and a state of the art application, the New York State

Public Service Commission has asked to be briefed on it for application in their proceedings. Judge Cotter has also been asked to explain the system at the National Center for State Courts Conference on Court Technology and the Annual Meetings of the Federal and American Bar Associations.

Finally, the Licensing Panel, because of its computer experience, will be ready and able to deal with the 16 million documents in the High Level Waste Repository pro-ceeding, a task that a manual system would render virtually impossible from the standpoint of time. Th. Panel will also be fully competent to work with an NRC fully computerized, full-text Document Control System, if and when installed.

C. Court Reporting Contract

. During FY 1987, the Licensing Panel managed the Commission's court reporting contract for all in-town and out-of-town proceedings except those of the Commission itself. The Panel furnishes such serv' ices to all other Commission offices.

The contract was revised and relet during the Fiscal Year achieving additional cost savings and improved service.

The Panel is particu'.arly interested in additional developments that would expedite not only the hearing process, but all Commission operations, through electronic filings. We anticipate that computer capture of all types of NRC proceedings, adjudicatory and non-adjudicatory, will '

become the norm.

V. CONCLUSION The Licensing Panel enjoyed a recnrd year in a number of respects. More cases were closed than in any year since 1982. Average time for all cases on the docket declined substantially, and strong pretrial management resolved in excess of 90% of all issues in cases closed (94% for operating license cases) without the need for a full blown hearing. Those accomplishments redound to the credit of a senior, experienced body of administrative judges, legal and technical, and their support staff.

l At the same time the judicial workforce began to shrink significantly. Younger judges continued to transfer to l

I

. l i . .

4 other agencies or to enter private practice and older judges ,

began to contemplate retirement. The Panel has not hired a  !

new judge in six yeart.

i The resource is unique; several years are required'for i a new judge to master the complex litigation encountered.in Licensing Board proceedings. The trend continues to threaten the availability of the Licensing Panel'for current

. work and for future litigation like the massive Monitored 1

Retrievable Storage and High Level Waste Repository proceedings.

i Respectfully submitte ,

s Qf "l B. Paul Cotter, Jr.

Chief Administrative Judge 1

)

s

. _ . - . . . . - - - . - - - . ._. .- _. . -. . -. - _ . - ... ~. -.

d 0 g i-e APPENDIX A  !

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING'80ARD PANEL SELECTED STATISTICS: FISCAL YEAR 1987 ,

~

, I. OVERVIEW ,

i The 52 proceedings conducted this fiscal year included 11 operating license (OL) proceedings involving 15 units l- valued at approximately $44 billion. Licensing Boards also i

" conducted 41 other proceedings, completing 48% of all cases on the docket.

II. DOCKET CASELOAD DATA The following information covers activities of the Boards up to and during the fiscal year:

A. FY 1987 ACTIVITY:

1

1. Cases Pending October 1, 1986 34 l

2. Cases Docketed During FY 1987 i (including remands and multiple boards) +18 ,

3. Total Cases 7  !

4. Cases Closed During FY 1987 -25 l

5. Cases Pending October 1, 1987 27 B. CASES ON THE DOCKET:

Fiscal Year 1987 52 Fiscal Year 1986 58 Fiscal Year 1985 55 Fiscal Year 1984 63 Fiscal Year 1983 64 C. TOTAL NEW CASES CLOSED BY THE PANEL:

1. Since October 1, 1972:

Docketed 437*

Pending 27 Closed 4TU A-1

2. Since November 9, 1962 (date first part time Board was appointed):

Docketed 519* ~

Pending 27 Closed 437 _

• Includes 93 proceedings oh petitions for hearing.

D. FY 1987 DOCKET ANALYSIS: l l

1. Types of new cases filed.

J

a. Operating licenses 0 I

b. Operating license amendments 4 l (Includes spent fuel pool and l transshipment cases) '

c. Construction permits 0

, d. Civil penalty and enforcement 1

e. Special proceedings 5

f. Antitrust 0 ;

g. Other proceedings 5 :

h. Remands (operating licenses) 3 i

,1

2. Types of cases closed:

a. Operating licenses 6

b. Operating license amendments 6

c. Construction permits 1

d. Civil penalty and enforcement 5

e. Special proceedings 2

f. Antitrust 0

g. Other proceedings 5 YT l

3. Types of cases pending October 1: 1987 )

Antitrust 0 Enforcement 2 Construction Permit 2 ,

Decommissioning 2 High Level Waste 0 l Land Disposal Wasta 0  !

License Amendment 4 Manufacturing Permit 0 A-2

9 Materials License 3 Operating License 6 Operators License 2 Remand 5 '

Special 0 Spent Fuel Pool & Trans- ~

shipment

_1 TOTAL CASES 27 DOCKET REDUCTION. In the last seven fiscal years, Licensing Boards have closed 163 cases. 47 more than the 116 new cases filed..

FY 1988 WORKLOAD. We expect 50 cases on the docket in FY 1988. Of the 27 cases pending October 1, 1987, four cases were temporarily suspended. Several will be activated dur,ing FY 1988. In light of the reduction in full-time Panel Members and OGC staffing, Licensing Boards anticipate that during FY 1988 they will complete 20 cases. We expact 23 new cases to be decketed during Fiscal Year 1988.

III. OPERATING LICENSES NEW UNITS AUTHORIZED. Three new units were authorized by Initial Decision in FY 1987. Braidwood and Vogtle 1 and

2. From May 1981 to September 30, 1987, Licensing Boards have authorized full power operating licenses for forty (40) new units by closing 36 proceedings, 20 by Initial Deci-sions. These units include Beaver Valley 2, Braidwood, Byron 1 and 2, Callaway 1, Catawba 1 and 2. Clinton 1 and 2, Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Enrico Fermi 2, Grand Gulf I and 2, Hope Creek, Indian Point 3. Limerick I and 2. McGuire 1 and 2 Nine Mile Point 2, Palo Verde 1, 2, and 3 Perry 1 and 2, River Bend 1 San Onofre 1 and 2, St. Lucie 2, Shearon Harris 1, South Texas 1 and 2. Summer 1 Susquehanna 1 and 2 Vogtle 1 and 2. Waterford 3, and Wolf Creek 1.

IV. CONTENTIONS The data concerning disposition of contentions show that: (1) contentions are being resolved expeditiously; (2) case management, discovery, and prehearing procedures are effective in achieving their intended purpose of reducing and focusing issues for hearing; and (3) a large A-3

.- _- - .. --.-_ -. - .- . - _ - . -,~ - -

4 .

1 I

a i portion of the Licensing Boards' work takes place in the

, prehearing phase. To illustrate, contentions resolved prior l l to hearing in all operating license proceedings on the 1

docket during FY 1987 total 464 out of 494 or 94%, an . 1 t

increase'over FY 1986. l

~

, Generally, the largest number of contentions eliminated l prior to hearing during FY 1987 resulted from Licensing Board rejection at the outset pursuant to the rules, e.g.,

43% in operating license cases. Moreover, the large major-I ity of all contentions initially admitted in all proceedings

! completed during FY 1987 were subsequently resolved prior to hearing through processes such as stipulation, consolida-

, tion, withdrawal, agreement among the parties following Licensing Boards negotiations, or summary disposition.

i actively and continuously encouraged and facilitated infor-mal, negotiated resolution of issues.

j- .

The contentions data generally understate the amount of l work involved. Frequently, a single contention contains moltiple subparts or issues. Thus, a' case having only a few

. contentions at hearing may in fact be considering many

i. issues. For example, the Braidwood quality control l contention had many subr, arts and required 97 days of hearing over two years.

l The data on resciution of contentions confirm the  :

Licensing Boards' active case management. Cf. the Commis-sion's May 1981 " Statement of Policy on Con 3uct of Licensing Proceedings", 13 NRC 452 (1981). The Boards expect this trend to continue in FY 1988.

V. HEAP.INGS The average number of days of hearings dropped sharply in FY 1987. For those cases where the record was closed during the fiscal year, an average of only 7 days of hearing and 2 days of prehearing were needed. The total is 50%

lower than last year.

OLs. Hearing time for seven operating license proceed-ings in which the record was closed during FY 1987 required an average, cumulative total of 18 hearing days and 3 prehearing days per case, for a total of 21 hearing days (several proceedings involved single remanded issues and only three proceedings went to actively litigated hearings).

A-4

I

~

i i

The totals are quite low.and reflect the parties' coopera-tion with the Licensing Boards' 'ef forts to improve hearing 4

management and thus resolve more contentions prior to hea ri ng. ,

OTHER. The average number of days of hearings required to complete all other types of proceedings is less than half the average days of hearing required for operating license and construction permit cases.

1

VI. AGE OF CASES The average age (length of time considered by a Board) of all cases on the docket during the Fiscal Year was 22 months, a significant reduction from the 27 month average in the, prior year. " Average age" means the number of months from the time a Licensing Board is first appointed (usually 30 to 60 days after a license application is formally docketed) until the case is closed or the end of the fiscal year, whichever is earlier. Average age includes waiting time resulting from suspension of work or unavailability of hearing documents (except where cases are suspended, for example, Carroll 1 & 2). " Average age" does not include the time a case may be pending before the Appeal Board or the Commission.

Average age by type for all cases on the docket during FY 1987 was:

Type of Case (Number of Cases) Months I Enforcement (3) 33 Construction Permit (1) 18 Decommissioning (2) 40 License Amendment (9) 13 Materials License (6) 7 Operating License (8) 50 Operators License (2) 2 Remand (7) 10 Special (5) 8 Spent Fuel Pool Trans. (2) 29 Suspended (7) _5 DOCKET AVERAGE (52 Cases) '? 2 A-5

9 4

l i

I The average was inflated by the presence of a handful of i operating license proceedings plagued by problems that delayed resolution of hearing issues or created new ones T

late in the proceeding.

4, e

l l

)

l A-6 l

a . . .-

9 APPENDIX B ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL Fiscal Year 1987 ,

I. PANEL MEMBERS A. Officers CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, B. PAUL COTTER, JR., Attorney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE -- EXECUTIVE, ROBERT M. LAZO, Attorney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Bethesda, MD DEPOTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE -- TECHNICAL, FREDERICK J. SH0N, Physicist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, IVAN W. SMITH, Attorney, U.S. Nuclear Requlatory Comission, Bethesda, MD B. Full-Time Administrative Judges

1. Legal JUDGE CHARLES BECHH0EFER, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE PETER B. BLOCH, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE JOHN H FRYE, III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD (Resigned May 11,1987)

JUDGE HELEN F. H0YT, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE JAMES L. KELLEY, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD (ResignedApril 14,1987)

. - -- - . - -- .. - . _ .. .~

l JUDGE MORTON B. MARGULIES, Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE SHELDON J. WOLFE, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD

~

2. Technical ,

JUDGE GLENN 0. BRIGHT, Engineer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER, Environmental Scientist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Environmental Scientist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory '

i Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, Geologist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE JERRY R. KLINE, Environmental Scientist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

- Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER, Physicist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE EMMETH A. LUEBKE, Physicist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD (Transferred to part-time September 30,1987)

JUDGE PETER A. MORRIS, Physicist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE OSCAR H. PARIS, Environmental Scientist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD i

C. Part-Time Administrative Judges

1. Legal JUDGE HUGH K. CLARK, Retired Attorney, E.I. duPont deNemours & Company, Kennedyville, MD

. JUDGE JAMES P. GLEASON, Attorney, Silver Spring, MD i

B-2 l

' , ,, . +

l JUDGE GARY L. MILHOLLIN, Professor, University of Wisconsin School of Law, Madison, WI JUDGE MARSHALL E. MILLER, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE SEYMOUR WENNER, Retired Administrative Law Judge, Postal Rate Comission, Chevy Chase, MD l

2. Techr.ical i

i JUDGE GEORGE C. ANDERSON, Marine Biologist, University of Washington, i Seattle, WA j

JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Retired Physicist, Union Carbide Corporation.

l Oak Ridge, TN L

JUDGE MICHAEL A. KIRK-DUGGAN, Economist, University of Texas, Austin, TX i JUDGE GEORGE A. FERGUSON, Retired Physicist. Howard University, a

Washington, DC .

I i JUDGE HARRY FOREMAN, Medical Doctor, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Mi:

i JUDGE RICHARD F. F0 STER, Environmental Scientist, Sunriver, OR l JUDGE CADET H. HAND, JR. , Marine Biologist, University of California, 3 Bodega Bay, CA JUDGE DAVID L. HETRICK, Nuclear Engineer, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ JUDGE ERNEST E. HILL, Nuclear Engineer, Hill Associates, Danville, CA JUDGE FRANK F. HOOPER, Marine Biologist, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI JUDGE ELIZABETH B. JOHNSON, Nuclear Engineer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN JUDGE WALTER H. JORDAN, Retired Physicist, Oak Ridge Laboratories, Oak Ridge, TN -

l JUDGE JAMES C. LAMB, III, Sanitary Engineer, University of North l Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC  !

l l

1 B-3 l i

4 i

l 1

JUDGE Raleigh, LINDA NC W. LITTLE, Environmental Biologist, L. W. Little Associates, l i

JUDGE KENNETH A. MCCOLLOM, Electrical Engineer, Oklahoma State

! University, Stillwater, OK ,

i

, ~

JUDGE DAVID Station, TX R. SCHINK, Oceanographer Texas A&M University, College JUDGE MARTIN J. STEINDLER, Chemist, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL

, JUDre TNTIN J. ST0BER, Biologist, University of Washington, Seattle, Wi (r.esigned October 27,1986)

J II. Professional Staff 1- .

DAVID L. PRESTEMON, Director and Chief Counsel, legal and Technical Support Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Bethesda, MD Law Clerks None III. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS CHARLES J. FITTI, Director, Program Support and Analysis Staff, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Bethesda, MD ELVA W. LEINS, Assistant Dircctor, Program Support and Analysis Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coremission, Bethesda, MD JACK G. WHETSTINE, Chief, Information Processing Section (Computer Programs), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Bethesda, MD B-4