ML20215K907
| ML20215K907 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1987 |
| From: | Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3379 CPA, OL, NUDOCS 8705120029 | |
| Download: ML20215K907 (9) | |
Text
_
b
,h, g gf7gg_Q3
% + gM.
000HEIED USNRC April 27.1987
~87 MAY -5 PI :01 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GrFid E; 5E;
~u-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
$h!EtEn In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-446-OL
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
50-455-CPA Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON PROPOSED STANDARDIZED COMPUTER FILING FORMATS I.
INTRODUCTION By Memorandum and Proposed Order dated April 3,1987, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) for these proceedings described a new system of filing pleadings, including past pleadings, which would
- make them' accessible to the Board's computerized files.
The Board asked that the parties provide comments on the proposed filing format before April 12, 1987 and proposed that the parties begin use of the new system on April 14, 1987.
Subsequently the response date was extended to April 27,1987. Staff comments on the proposed filing format follow.
II. DISCUSSION The Board's memorandum indicates that it intends to propose a " uni-form format for filing documents" and that it would " urge that all filings for the record be made in the adopted format".
No mention is made of 10 C.F.R.
I 2.708, " Formal requirements for documents", although at g51$gO 5
5 V
April 27, 1987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-446-OL
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
50-455-CPA Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
1 1
NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON PROPOSED STANDARDIZED COMPUTER FILING FORMATS
[ INTRODUCTION By Memorandum and Proposed Order dated April 3,1987, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) for these proceedings described a l
new system of filing pleadings, including past pleadings, which would make them accessible to the Board's computerized files. The Board asked that the parties provide comments on the proposed filing format before I
April 12, 1987 and proposed that the parties begin use of the new system on April 14, 1987.
Subsequently the response date was extended to April 27,1987. Staff comments on the proposed filing format follow.
l II. DISCUSSION The Board's memorandum indicates that it intends to propose a " uni-l form format for filing documents" and that it would " urge that all filings for the record be made in the adopted format".
No mention is made of 10 C.F.R.
I 2.708, " Formal requirements for documents", although at i
l i
i 1
,w
-,,--,--,.,-,--,---,n---
,, - ~ -, -,.. -, -. - - - - - - -.... - - - - - -,
_ o-page 6 of its memorandum, the Board states that it is not at this time considering dispensing with paper filings.
Since the Board does not have the authority to waive or amend 5 2.708, it is assumed that all electronic filings suggested by the Board would be in addition to those required under that section.
Given the fact that a formal paper docket would still be required and the likelihood that appeals to the Appeal Board or the Commission probably would be in hard copy, it is not clear that there are advantages to the parties in the Board's proposal which would compensate for the additional burden im-posed by the proposed procedures.
Indeed, it is questionable, even under the broad latitude allowed a board to take such actions as may be necessary to avoid delay in 10 C.F.R. I 2.718, whether the Commission's Rules of Practice would permit a board to impose computerized filing systems upon the parties in light of the corresponding burden that would result.
While the Staff has a strong interest in computerized litigation techniques, it would gain little benefit from the Board's proposal but would be required to expend substantial additional effort to comply.
For example, unless the Board and parties also provided one another with disks in electronic format each time a document was served, only the Board would have the capability and advantages of electronic data retrieval from the docket.
To require all service on all parties to be in electronic disk format as well as in paper format would place an untoward additional cost and resource burden on the parties.
While the Board does indicate an intent to make its system available in a read-only answer mode at periodic intervals, the communication times involved even at 1200 Baud make the benefits of this approach at the present time most speculative.
._ - _ - -. ~ - - - -..
r Thus, in effect, the Board's proposal amounts to transferring work effort for. Indexing and organizing the docket from itself to the Staff and parties.
1 In addition to the general concerns just indicated, there are a num-ber of specific technical problems with the approach suggested by the Board:
f (1) The page format described in Section I of the Memorandum differs from that in use by the Office of General Counsel.
Thus, for Comanche Peak pleadings it i
would be necessary to modify the established format on the IBM 5520 Administrative System and produce a second form i
for each document,. unique to the Comanche Peak proceedings and entailing a duplicative effort by support
. personnel.
(2) Conversion of the described format to ASCII would, however, automatically change the format prescribed in Section I, resulting, when printed, in still a different i
format from that described in the Memorandum, thus i
nullifying the change in format specified.
Significantly, i
use of ASCII would strip the format of a document in such a way as to destroy its structure, style and presentation i
thereby eliminating any impact intended by the author through the deliberate formatting of its appearance (e.g.,
typeface, paragraph structure) and organization.
(3) The detailed indexing described for the heading of i
each pleading appears to be unnecessarily complicated and time consuming.
In addition, insofar as the procedures provide for the reindexing of documents, exhibits, for example, it is unclear whether a second copy of a document i
I need be provided upon reindexing.
Also, there appears to be no appropriate indexing procedure for a document first indexed as an intended exhibit but not received in evidence.
(The Staff would also note that the format for dating documents stated on page 4 of the Memorandum is inconsistent with the date format shown by way of example on the first page.)
(4) The use of a " key word" system proposed by the Board has no standard for use unless the Board anticipates using that devised by West Publishing Company or by the Commission's Public Document Room.
Without a standard key word list, freestyle indexing likely would result in
substantial inconsistencies as the respective parties developed their own keywords, making retrieval difficult if not impossible.
(5) Without formal procedures for inventory and return of disks, loss and confusion could occur.
(6) Use of this system would require more Office resources to produce pleadings for the Comanche Peak proceeding than for other proceedings.
(7) It is important to note that all "PC-compatible" machines do not have the same version of DOS, so that the type of disk and the formatting of disks should be standardized, as well as a list provided of acceptable fonts and pitches supported by the Optical Character Reader.
I (8)
The Board's proposed order would likely cause confusion as to the computation of time for responding to filings made electronically.
The Commission's rule specifying computation of time does not address electronic filings.
10 C.F.R.
I 2.710.
Although the Board's proposed order provides that " filing by modem wouhl substitute for express mail," (Memorandum at 6) the order 4
fails to include a procedure for notification of parties that a filing has been made electronically-thereby making uncertain the time for response.
If the Board contemplates that parties would serve one another as well as the Board electronically, the costs could substantially exceed those i
required for express mail.
This, of course, is dependent on a number of factors such as Baud rate, length of the 1
document, need for long distance phone services, and the number of persons on whom service is required.
For example, a 20 page document can take up to 30 minutes to l
transmit if there are incompatibilities with error checking software being used for telecommunications.
Such problems i
can be solved if services like AB A Net, MCI Mail, or Compuserve are used.
The latter approach, however, would be another procedure the Board would need to work out.
Such services would also be subject to NRC procurement requirements.
For the reasons explained above, Staff Counsel believes that rather than devoting extra resources to one proceeding to produce an unfamiliar l
and complex form of filing, it would be far more appropriate for the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel to discuss with the Office of General Counsel and representatives of utilities and intervenor groups a l
--w--
-.--ws
-,-m,
--y----w-,w---
_,---,._....,--.mm.---_.-.w--.--
-. -, - -..... - = -. - - _..., + - - - ~ _. - - -. - - - - - - - -
-w-
mutually agreeable standard form of computerized filing which could be effectively used by all parties in all proceedings, rather than to institute i
several systems at the discretion of individual Licensing Boards.
Both the Licensing Board Panel, the Office of General Counsel, intervenor and industry groups would benefit from use of a standard system of electronic filings known to the support Staff of each organization, rather than sev-eral different systems. This type of effort is currently underway in con-nection with rulemaking on the High-Level Waste proceeding.
Therefore, Staff Counsel respectfully suggests that representatives from interested organizations consult and develop a system of electronic filing for future use, but that no such system he initiated for this or any other single proceeding.
In spite of the shortcomings in the Board's proposal discussed above, the Staff is willing to provide the Board with 51" disks of Staff-generated documents (e.g., pleadings and other documents to the extent prepared by the Staff 1 ) filings in ASCII text or in DisplayWrite format.
These disks will be formatted in the form currently established for the Office of the General Counsel's or Office of Special Projects' IBM i
j 5520 systems (with identification of which system has been used given for i
each document) and conversion to whatever format the Board wishes can then be undertaken by the Board's administrative staff.
The Staff could provide the Board with disks within 5 working days following the filing or
-1/
Some Staff pleadings and documents, such as Safety Evaluation Reports and Supplements, include, from time to time, attachments and appendices not directly prepared by the Staff which, therefore, would not be available in disk form.
issuance of the hard copy of a document.
Computation of time would be established as ordinarily done, in accordance with the Commission's rules, based on the means of service employed for the filing of the hard copy.
Disks would be returned by the Board 10 days after receipt.
III.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, Staff Couns,el asks that the Proposed Order Concerning Standardized Computer Filing Formats either be held in abey-ance until such time as a standard system can be devised and agreed among the Licensing Board Panel, the Office of General Counsel, and rep-resentatives for intervenors and the nuclear industry, or be withdrawn in favor of an approach as outilned above.
Respectfu!ly sutmitted, t
ColIeen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 27th day of April,1987 l
l
3-DOCXEILD
,45] s
,(
V3NRC
'h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 liAY -5 P1 :02
_7' BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD k
E[0'CNiftIdY v$f
/ld BRANCH In 'the Matter of
)-
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ~
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-446-OL g.
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
50-455-CPA y
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
' ', [
{
.c f
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF COMMENTS ON lf PROPOSED STANDARDIZED COMPUTER FILING FORMATS" in the above-captioned proceeding have heen served on the following by deposit in the Unite 6 States mail,~ first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 27th day of April,1987:
Administrative Judge Mrs. Juanita Ellis Peter B. Bloch, Esq., Chairman
- 4 President, CASE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1426 South Polk Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dallas, TX 75224 Washington, DC 20555 Renea Hicks, Esq.
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Assistant Attorney General Administrative Judge -
Environmental Protection Division L
1107 West Knapp P.O. Box 12548, Capital Station Stillwater, OK 74075 Austin, TX 78711 Elizabeth B. Johnson Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.
Administrative Judge Worsham, Forsythe, Samples Oak Ridge' National Laboratory
& Wooldridge P.O. Box X, Building 3500 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 3200 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dallas, TX 75201 l
Dr. Walter H. Jordan Joseph Gallo, Esq.
l Administrative Judge Isham, Lincoln & Beale 881 W. Outer Drive Suite 1100 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
[
Washington, DC 20036 T
f s
.I' a
~2-
_q Billie Pirner Garde Mr. W. G. Counsil Trial Lawyers for Public Executive Vice President
, Justice '
Texas Utilities Generating Company 3424 North Marcos Lane.
400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Appleton, WI 54911 Dallas, TX 75201 William L. Brown, Esq.*
Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 600 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 1401 New York
- Avenue, NW Arlington, TX 76011 Washington, DC 20005
. Mr. Harry Phillips William H. Burchette, Esq.
Resident Inspector / Comanche Peak Mark D. Nozette, Esq.
Steam Electric Station Heron, Burchette, Ruckert c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
& Rothwell, Suite 700 P.O. Box 36 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Glen Rose, TX 76043 Washington, DC 20007 Lanny Alan Sinkin James M. McGaughy Christic Institute GDS Assoc. Inc.
1324 Forth Capitol Street 2525 Cumberland Parkway, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20002 Atlanta, GA 30339 Robert D. Martin
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel
- 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Arlington, TX 76011 Washington, DC 20555 Robert A. Jablon, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Spiegel a McDiarmid Board Panel
- 1350 New York Avenue,- N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington, DC 20005-4798 Washington, DC 20555 Thomas G. Dignan, 'Esq.
Docketing and Service Section*
i Ropes a Gray Ofnce of the Secretary 1
225 Franklin Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boston, MA 02110 Washington, DC 20555 l
Colleen P. Woo'dhead j
Counsel for NRC Staff L
- - - -