ML22230A082
| ML22230A082 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/24/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780124 | |
| Download: ML22230A082 (45) | |
Text
RETURN TO SECRETARIAT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
COMMISSION MEETING DISCUSSIONS OF PROCEDURES FOR STAFF NOTIFICATION TO BOARDS OF RELEVANT AND MATERIAL NEW INFORMATION Place -
Washington, D. C.
Date -
Tuesday, 24 January 1978 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY Pages 1 -
42 Telephone:
(202) 3A7-3700
DI SCU\\IMER This is an unofficial transcript of a ~eeting of th2 United Ste.tes r:uclear Regulatory Commission held on January 24, 1978 in the Co~~ission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been review::id, corrected, or edited, and it may ccrntain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
J\\s provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect fi na 1 determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper ~ay be filed with the Commission in any proceedin9 as the result of or addressed to any state~ent or ai*g~Hnent contained herein, except as the Cornr.iission may authorize.
I CR 6173 dav 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-Federol Reporters, Inc.
25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULA~ORY COMMISSION DISCUSSIONS OF PROCEDURES FOR STAFF NOTIFICATION TO BOARDS OF RELEVANT AND MATERIAL NEW INFORMATION Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
1 Tuesday, January 24, 1978 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 3:15 p.m.
BEFORE:
DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner RICHARDT. KENNEDY, Commissioner
I CR 6173 DAV pv#6 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-Federol Reporters, Inc:.
25 2
P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay,.Mr. Case.
We have Dr. Volgenau, and others coming in at 3:30.
Why don't we kick off and go on this subject.
Vic is just outside and will be in momentarily.
The subject is further discussions of procedures for staff notification to boards of relevant and material new information, and Mr. Case and Mr. Boyd and his staff, Mr. Rosenthal with the appeals board, Mr. Yore from the licensing panel -- Mr. Boyd is reaCJ.
Mr. Shaypar plays a --.
MR. SHAYPAR:
Minor, unimportant role.,
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's your paper, Ed.
Why don't you go ahead.
MR. CASE:
Roger will go ahead.
He'll go through the paper.
MR. BOYD:
Let me say at the onset that included over the last two months that the act of notifying boards is much, much simpler than trying to explain anybody, either in writing or orally, how to do it.
We've made an attempt in the paper, and I tried to boil that down to a series of viewgraphs to*punch out the sig-nificant factors in our consideration.
As everyone will recall, back on October 19 we briefed the Commission on the matter of board notification and
pv2 3
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 a proposed general way of including the past practices.
The practices, as everybody remembers, were set forth in McGuire, the appeal board decision of McGuire in '73.
(Viewgraph is shown.)
MR. BOYD:
Another aspect of it ~n Vogtle in '75, pointing_out that, in fact, McGuire talks ~o a reporting require ment and not to the boards to decide whether such information would be disclosed that would require significant safety or environmental issues and that would give rise to further con-sideration.
The Commission, in its North Ana decision, pointed out very specifically and I repeated it on the viewgraph --
(Viewgraph is shown.)
MR. BOYD:
as a quote, that the licensing board, the parties, and the public have a right to be promptly informed of a discovery before staff evaluation of that dis-covery and regardless of whether the record is technically open.
It's-the guidance of McGuire, Vogtle, and that North Ana opinion that has directed the staff along its past and onto its present proposed board notification practice.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Could I ask a question, a minute, since Alan is.here.
In the comment in Vogtle which were -- let's see --
now, were those yours.or the licenses?
MR. ROSENTHAL:
Ours.
pv3 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
,ce-Federcl Reporters, Inc.
25 4
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You said there what you had meant in McGuire.
MR. ROSENTHAL:
Yes.
We've indicated that McGuire, as indicated on the viewgraph, established simply a reporting requirement.
(Viewgraph is shown.)
MR. ROSENTHAL:
And that it was then the responsi-bility of the boards on obtaining the information.supplied in compliance with the reporting requirements laid down in McGuire to determine whether or not the safety or environmental issue was presented, was of such significance as to require further consideration.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's a determination left to the boards, and a piece of information filed; and this is quite apart from whether, in filing that piece of information, the staff regards it as relevant material under what will turn but to be alternative 1 here, or simply we happen to get it, we happen to generate it, and thought y.ou ought to have it as an alternative 3.
MR. YORE:
In McGuire, as I recall it, the board had already finished the. hearing when the applicant changed their quality assurance program, which was one of the issues in that proceeding.
Is that right, Bob?
You were chairman of the board.
VOICE:
Yes, Jim; that's correct.
The board was
pv4 le 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
~ce-Federcl Reporters, Inc.
25 writing its initial decision at the time the QA changed.
5 program was MR. SHAYPAR:
The timing of it was different, but the principle, I guess, for the purposes of this discussion --
MR. BOYD:
McGuire established the concept of "rele-vant and material new information being provided to the board,"
and furthermore made the point that staff and applicant should have the obligation to do this.
In Vogtle it says how the board will decide what to do with it.
Okay.
I 1 d like to indicate on the next chart we were on --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: *I'd like to ask whether Vogtle modified rather than s.imply extende d the ruling.
It seems to be, but you think not?
MR. ROSENTHAL:
I do not think it was a modification at all.
I think it was just making it clear that what McGuire dealt with was the obligation of the staff to report relevant and material information,
making it clear what happened with that information was the board's responsibility.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
So, in the first case, the McGuire case, responsibility for.determining what is material and relevant is placed in the staff.
MR. CASE:
Right.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What to do with material and relevant information submitted by the staff, is that a matter
pvS 2
3 4
5 6
7 I
81 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 11.ce-Federol Reporters, Inc.
25 6
for a board to d~cide?
MR. ROSENTHAL:
So, too, in Vogtle.
Vogtle did not change that.
They're both, in my judgment -- both of those decisions are perfectly consistent.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Here, it says, on the view-graph,-McGuire established no more reporting requirements.
It seems to me it established something more than that.
It placed upon the staff the responsibility for determining what it should report, which is that which is material and relevant.
MR. ROSENTHAL:
That's right.
MR. BOYD:
But as I recall, Mr. Kennedy, the words that were used there in that opening sentence are essentially a quote from the Vogtle decision.
That it be no.*more than a reporting requirement is taken from the Vogtle decision.
You do bring up a point, though, that would probably appreciate an adjunct, and that is also in McGuire.
There was a clear point made that, in the event the staff cannot determine whether a piece of information is relevant or material, it should be sent to the board and let the board decide that.
MR. CASE:
Err on the side of sending it; I think -
that's the case.
MR. BOYD:
And this sort of guidance is what's led us to this present evolutionary position.
As an aside, I'd like to point out that since McGuire, back in '73, we were able to identify at least 125
pv6 2
3 4
5 specific example~ of boards notifications.
(Viewgraph is shown.)
7 MR. BOYD:
We can't comment on whether there should have been 175 or whether there should only have been 100.
- But, in fact, I think it does establish that the staff since 1973 6
has been following this requirement.
7 I also would point out that we established a formal 8
written-down procedure in 1976, following a Commission meeting 9
back in June of that year, and that the practice was extende.d 10 to consider notifications of board~ in more than one proceeding.
11 Something relevant and material in one proceeding may, in fact, 12 also be relevant and material in other proceeding~, and our 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 procedures covered that at that time.
When we briefed the Commission on October 19 --
lViewgraph is shown.)
MR. BOYD:
we pointed out a number of difficul-ties with the present practice.
One was the difficulty in trying to establish specific and uniform criteria for judging relevancy and materiality.
It ai'so became obvious to us that some sort of followup and recordkeeping system was needed, so that if you supply some information to the board you must at some later time get back with them and properly dispose of it, at least in the view of the staff.
This was being done, but it was certainly not being done systematically.
~ce-Federol Reporters, Inc.
25 We pointed out, also, the obvious difference in
pv7 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1ce-Federol Reporters, Inc.
25 8
handling internally generated information within the staff, com-pard* to the relatively simple matter of handling information tha is provided by applicant, vendors, outside information.
That was a problem, I think, in handling things uniformly.
We also indicated -- and I think-there was general agreement around this table -- that whatever the new practice is, it should be agency-wide, Now, the term "agency-wide" was used then, and I'm using it now.
Probably toward the end of this discussion we will have some points as to what that defini-tion should encompass.
But, in any event, it's taken by us to mean the whole staff, not just NRR.
There are a number of solutions to the problems that we've had.
(Viewgraph is shown.)
MR. BOYD:
Some are going to be the specific pro-posals, alternative 1 versus alternative 3, described in the paper.
A number of them are independent of the alternative, and I thought r' d focus on these and bring them up.
The first one is the strong feeling on the part of the staff, based on the guidance and reactions received to date, that these relevant and material determinations should be inter-preted liberally.
I think we get some of that from McGuire, where it was pointed out, as I just said, that if you can't make the determination, *send it to the board and let them make the determination.
pvB 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14
~5 16 17 18 9
Anything -- and in trying to come up with a defini-tion we've come across the words that say any new information that could reasonably be regarded as putting a new or different light upon an is~ue before the board or as raising a new issue which the board could inquire into under its sua sponte authorit
-- the point is, however we would do this, we would propose, independent of any alternative, to do it very lib.erally.
It's obvious that recordkeeping and followup systems should be established, at least -- and as we pointed out in the paper for handling information provided subsequent to the start of the hearing.
As you will find out in*this presentation, the staff now proposes a very specific distinction between what it would do before a hearing starts and what it would do after a hearing starts.
And we also will make the point, if I don't right now, that prior to this consideration there was no distinction drawn and no guidance given, even though I think there may have been intuitive feeling that we:. were only talking about when does a end#6 19 hearing start.
20 21 22 23 24 ce-Federol Reporters, Inc.
25
CR6173 HOFF:sp
- 7 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 10 Frankly, in the staff's deliberation to date and in the preparation of this policy paper, we could find no basis to draw this distinction.
MR. CASE:
No logical basis.
- MR. BOYD:
The matter of internally generated infonnatio,
we think, as we described in the paper, *can be appropriately handled, and we would draw a line, again, independent of the alternatives, that when we get to the point where the staff determines it is necessary to get more information about*this problem, whether from applicant vendors or what, that now is the time and not before to be providing such internally generated information to the Board.
(Slide.)
MR. CASE:
This takes it away from the musings of a person's mind to the point where there has been a collective judgment that it's important enough to ask an applicant how he's soing to handle this problem or has handled it, or we go to a vendor which would represent a number of applicants saying, how do you think that this problem should be handled in your type of design.
That would be the trigger point where we think it would reach material relevancy and, therefore, be.sent to the affected applicant.
It's a relatively easy thing to administer, and I think it makes sense from a technical standpoint.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It's a fairly low threshold.
sp2 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I -
23 24 Ace-Federai Reporters, Inc.
25 11 MR. CASE:
It's a fairly low threshold.
MR. BOYD:
It would be lower in some cases where there were a draft proposed staff position that we're going forward to our internal RQC review, and we would propose with the same sort of logic to get it through such a review before we would have it approved to the point of making it worthy of Board notification.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That sounded different.
MR. CASE:
Usually.
But there may be some cases where you decide you have to go ahead and seek a solution to a problem before you can wait for RQC.
And then, once you go to the applicant or vendor to get how it's going to be handled or how it should be handled, that would be the trigger.
In most cases you'd go to RQC before you'd take that action, but I wouldn't want to say in every case.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Before you'd go out for more information?
MR. CASE:
For any information, information that the staff doesn't have left to its own devices.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
If it decided to get more~irtformation, that would trigger it.
MR. CASE:
Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Whatever the nature of that information.
sp3,,
1
'2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I -
23 24 Ace-Federal Reponers, Inc.
25 MR. BOYD:
It I s got to.. be a mechnism where it becomes a serious significant -- and if I don't use the word "significant" -- if it's tested in those decisions but once it becomes significant and it takes management attention to decide what to do with it, and that decision indicates that something should be done in.a dispositive way, then we would react, under this sytem, and notify the boards.
M:8.. CASE-:
Recognize, it's quite. similar to the Albernative 3 situation where we're suggesting where
~e went to an applicant and say in the normal review of the case, we think we have a problem with the way you're proposing this thing.
That's the same kind of a trigger point, w~ere you're going back to the company based on your evaluation of his information and asking for more information.
It's a similar trigger point.
12 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Does it include going out to the technical assistance contractors?
MR. CASE:
No.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That's regarded as, in effect, in-house?
MR. CASE:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What's clear is, there's been a long struggle to find some mark point in the consideration of internally generated-matters which
sp4
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13
- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 13 doesn't require great agonizing appraisals for each blasted one in order to decide whether it's matured into a relevant and material matter.
PJld the difficulty of finding such a thing suggests that if you think this one is workable, why, I' rn sufficiently impressed that you think,*you 've got a workable one, sufficiently impressed not to quibble about whether the threshold.level is right or not.
It may be a low threshold with a difficulty of finding such mark points.
MR. BOYD:
We did find a technical issue that at the time we didn't realize we were applying this test to, but in fact as a reaction it was exactly what we did, and it did result, in fact, in a number of boards being notified.
We hadn't postulated this at that time.
It was just our normal reaction in doing business.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
vkay.
Onward.
MR. BOYD:
I make the point that *it'd help solve thi problem to make it an "agencywide" practice.
i-vhen-you_
develop a practice, it should be followecfr by.. NRR for its cases and NMSS for its cases, and have all other program and staff offices supply information to these two offices that they consider might be relevant material, and leave it up to either NRR or NMSS to sort the thing out and decide in collaboration with.OELD whether or not to send it forward.
(Slide.)
spS 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 The application of these board notification procedures to a certain extent is also independent of the alternative chosen.
As we see it, information would be provided to the licensing board during the course of the proceeding, which is, I would remind everybody, very early in the licensing process under the restructured rules.
The board is formed and takes some sort of quasi judicial jurisdiction over the proceeding very early on.
It would continue from that point until the issuance of the initial decision.
It would*go to the appeal board.
Information would be provided to the appeal board during the period of its review, and in fact, to the Commission during the period of its review.
And I think there have been some cases where we have done this.
Again, there is the pddmt which is already developed that.it would also be independent, and it would have to consider boards J.:.n*. other proceedings if the inf-ormation were relev.ant material to these other proceedings.
(Slide.)
14 Another distinction that is drawn in the paper is that between a construction permit and _operating license and an amendment to an operating license.
We. feel very comfortably that these procedures clearly apply to construction permit proceedings on all
sp6 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 I I 15 r.elevan.t and material matters.
We have made the point, and I believe Mr. Case did in some of his recent testimony, that an operating license proceedings where one could argue
- that it's limited to the issues in controversy or matters raised by the Board, that notwithstanding any information
.of relevant material to the ultimate safety and environmental issues, the licensing of the plant would be supplied to the board regardless o:f whether 1/4ey' were issues placed in controversy~
And that goes beyond McGuiie, because McGuire just dealt with issues in controversy.
But I don't see how the board or a board can exercise its sua sponte responsibility under Indian Point to look at matters beyond those matters it considers to be significant unless it has all the.* faiformation.
MR.
CASE:
T~1e question is, where do you draw the line.
The staff is proposing not to draw it between the CPs and OLs but in fact to draw one between OLs and amendment hearings.
As everyone appreciates, a hearing with an operating reactor involves a specific issue where there has been the need for a hearing only on that issue, and there the staf£ would propose -- I think, logically to limit information flow to those specific issues considered in the hearing.
the line at that point.
So we would propose to draw CHAIRMAN BEND.RIB:
Let I s see.
In. OL proceedings
sp7 l
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 does this then result in a flow-in to the boards -- in effect, a gratuitous flow of material which would not otherwise occur?
MR. BOYD:
It would be difficult for the staff to determine that.. ;,,rOw,tng.;to. the board __ ' s sua sponte responsibility from the staff point of view, we can say, yes, this is gratuitous, because we don't think the board's interested in this.
But I don't think we're in a position to know whether the boards might be interested in this.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let I s see.
Up to the~_tiF.le of filing of the staff's file safety analysis, the safety analysis report at the OL stage, and th1:supplement that immediately follows after ACRS review and so forth, it has been the staff's intention:at least to include within that report everything that it thinks the board ought to think about.
MR. CASE:
The whole case.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
In the case in this regime, however, there would, in addition to the staff safety a*nalysis report and its* supplements after the ACRS letter~ being from sort of the beginning of the establishment of the report, a sort of gentle, general rain upon the proceedings of items coming in that would get classed as relevant material.
16
spB.
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 F
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-F~eral Reporters, Inc.*
25 The same is true for construction permits, of course.
MR. BOYD:
You've explained the next s*lide slightly better than I could, Mr. Chairman.
(Slide.)
17 Another distinction to be made on the *application, which, again, is independent of the alternatives, is the consideration of what would do before the start of the hearing, what one would do after the start of the hearing.
As we pointed out a little bit earlier, this sort of thinking evolved in this staff study.
As far as she staff sees, there is no present distinction drawn between before or after the start of the proceeding, as far_**
as staff obligation to notify boards.
MR. CASE:
Or to start after the hearing.
MR. BOYD:
Or excuse me -- to start after the hearing.
We are, however, proposing in the event of either alternative selected that routine information flow, whatever it is, before the start of the hearing --
(Slide.)
-- will not be accompanied by specific relevant material determinations.
The staff would make the assumption that the material that it provides in the form of the FES, the site suitability report, the SER, any supplements to its testimony constitute identification of
sp9 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 all relevant material matters and, in fact, the staff assessment of the significance of those matters.
It's 18 only after the hearing starts that each piece of information sent.,to.the,.. boards.. would ultimately be followed at the soonest possible time as some sort of staff assessment of its significance.
And, I think, implicit in whatever new procedure comes out of this deliberation, the distinction will have to be made between what the staff does before the start of a hearing and after.
Putting it another way, I think the Commission has to be in a position to either agree or disagree with us.
I think the boards and the panels have to be in a position to either agree or disagree with us; that the distinction that we feel we're making that wasn't there before from this and, as you can see in the_. p9-per CHAIRMAN-HENDRIE:
Hang on.
MR. BOYD:
Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Before the start of the hearing, then -- and I'm not quite sure how that point would be marked.
It might be with the.:*filing of staff testimony of something like that.
MR. BOYD:
Approximately.
CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Not necessarily the banging of the gavel.
spl0 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc, 25 19 MR. BOYD; Yes; quite so.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right.
You would say, look, while these things arise in the turmoil of the staff's general operation in this area and we'll flip these out to boards sort of as they come along, and in a given proceeding then you won't have, you know -- here they'll come, plopping one after another on the table.
In due time the staff will come in and overhear and put down its safety evaluation report, or SER, its* final environmental statement, its testimony, and so on.
And in those documents it will treat the things that it thinks the board ought to pay attention to.
.MR. CASE:
We will have considered all these parts of papers as part of the staff review.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If you think any one of these odd pieces that's fallen in during the preceding months is important for::t.he.::.board to consider, you' re mention it over here.
If you don't think it's important, you won!t mention it.
MR. BOYD:
Right.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
One might then ask, well, okay, why did we put all this extra paper before the board, at least up to this time.
NR., CASE:
- Hy answer would be, we considered that to be in the course o1 our review -- we considered it
spll 2
3
,e 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal *Reporters, Inc.
25 enough to write the applicant a question about it:. and evaluate his answer.
So we considered it in our review.
Now, whether that's material and relevant material and relevant -- it's anybody's choice as to what 20 it means.
I can't find any definition that anybody or the lawyers will stand be!:iind.
Some days they tell me "material 11 means the same as "material 11 ; the other day, 11 relevant'!
means the same as 11material.
11 Of course, it does.
You have to deal with all of them.
MR. SHAPAR:
I suppose there's another reason, if you' re planning to go this route.
'I'he board has just been sitting there doing nothing while the staff is getting rea~y, and they are theoretically reviewing the application and getting ready for the case.
So I supp9se one could make the argument to getting this information to them would be useful to perform their preparations for their eventual hearing~f the case.
I think one could make it reasonable.
11R. CASE:
I think it is.
We'll talk about what we consider to be significant in our SER.
If there's another issue that we haven't talked about, we'll have our witnesses there, and the board can ask them, well, what about this --.what did you do with this or that piece of information in your review*~- and our witnesses can answer
spl2
- 2 3
,e 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
-22 23 24
~ce-FederaJ*Reporters, Inc.
25 the question.
HR. BOYD:
As it evolves out of the discussion, the staff in.. the:..~paper takes a view relating to the restructured rules back in 1972.
Before that time, as I recall, boards were impaneled very late in the licensing process.
It was,.in fact, about that time that they were impaneled very early in the process.
Boards are involved very early.
Information -- whatever is appropriate, relevant material to them, in our argument, as we'll finally get to it, is that that information should be provided.
But early on there is a board.
It isn't -- as I tried to point out in the paper, we can't imagine to think about it when the restructured rules were set down in '72, all of this information that we're going to propose in Alternative 3, it was decided to send it to the parties.
MR. SHAPAR:
There's really a point that's very basic here, and that's we're trying to establish a rationale for what the Commission might want to do.
T;:ie sua sponte review system that we have is pretty alien to almost any other type of administrative agency or the courts.
The usual regime is that the parties handle their own controversies and submit evidence they think is important to their case, and the 21
spl3 end#7
- 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
.22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reportersi Inc.
25 22 judge decides it,*or the administrative agency decides.
The problem here is more difficult, because the Commission has decided -- and I think, wisely -- that the board ought to have.an independent sua sponte rule.
In effect, they're acting like ombudsmen*, if you want to use that word.
- Now, if.. th~y have been given that role, they have to have a data base on which to decide whether or not they want to raise new issues.
If we don't give them the data base, then they can't perform the sua sponte review role which the Commission has given them.
So the reason for this information is not because any of the parties necessarily think the board ought to get this information and develop their own case and put on,:.their own evidence; they' re giving the board the information as part of the data base that the board needs, presumably, to carry out the sua sponte review role the Commission has created for them, and I think that distinction is very important.
173.08.1 gsh 2
3 4
23 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Mr. Chairman, my silence at this point should not be ~onstrued as acquiescence.
MR. SHAPAR:
I concur.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I might comment.
5 It seems to me that some different conclusion 6
might follow once the hearing is started, the staff has 7
then filed its principal papers, and if it has things 8
that come up after that point, then perhaps what are you 9
going to do with the stuff?
10 MR. ROSENTHAL:
My di.ff icul ty is this:
under JI alternative 3, the staff, as has been indicated, would 12
~ncritically supply the boards with all correspondence 13 and documentation betwBen staff and applicant relevant 14 to the specific application.
15 What relevant to the specific application means, 16 as I understand it, having to do with that reactor.
17 (Slide.)
18 MR. ROSENTHAL:
Now I would put it to you that 19 there is absolutely no way in connection with the review 20 of the issues that are presented to us or in connection 21 with our sua sponte review that we can handle that kind 22 of information.
23 A substantial portion of it will have utterly 24 no significance to any issue which, conceivably, could 25 bear upon the ultimate judgment which the licensing or
73.08.2 gsh 24 2
appeal board must make.
That ultimate judgment is should the license application be granted and, if so, subject to 3
what conditions?
4 We've already experienced what I. think is the 5
bear tip of this iceberg.
Virginia Electric and Power 6
Company, in the last weeks, doubtless, has a reaction 7
perhaps in the view of some, an overreaction, to the 8
events of December.
They have started the file with us 9
in the North Anna operating licens~ docket, copies of 10 all of its correspondence. with the staff.
11 In doing it, their lawyer has said that this 12 is being done out of an abundance of caution.
He doesnJt 13 think it has any bearing on anything that might come 14 before the appeal board in that docket.
15 As matters now stand, the operating license 16 procedure has not reached the appeal board.
17 We've been confronted _with discussions of a 18 number of incidents that have occurred -- a voltage 19 regulator had some kind of operational problem -- it has 20 taken the time of my technical advisor to go through these 21 letters.that are coming in almost daily to report back to 22 me, I suppose also to my colleagues on that board, as to 23 whether there's any possible significance to any of this 24 information.
25 You multiply that in terms of hundreds, if not
73.08.3 gsh 25 2
3 thousands of pieces of paper and there's no way in which we can make any kind of meaningful use out of it.
I think what we're going to confront is a 4
defeat, as a practical matter, of the reporting requirement, 5
the defeat of it in the sense that certainly, staff is 6
going to report by way of furnishing all of this documentation 7
and critically report to us everything that passes back 8
and forth between them and the applicants.
9 We're not going to be able to come to grips JO with that wealth of material and, therefore, essentially, 11 it's going to be worthless.
12 And if the reporting requirement is going to 13 mean anything, and really mean anything, it seems to me 14 that there has xo be some kind of standard employed for 15 determining whether there is any reasonable basis for 16 concluding that a piece of information has potential 17 relevance to some issue that the board will be called upon 18 to decide.
19 Now the boards, even with their sua sponte 20 responsibilities, are not general overseers of the applicants 21 conduct. in PJrsuing either the construction of the plant 22 or its operation.
23 That's not the function of the boards.
24 Even with the sua sponte jurisdiction, the boards 25 have a relative rate limited area in which they operate.
73.08.4 gsh 26 2
And a very small percentage of this information will be of any possible relevance to issues which the board might 3
consider.
4 Now there is another way, as I indicated in 5
my own memorandum, that this can be handled, if the 6
Commission so desired, and that is to enlarge the staffs 7
of the licensing board panel and the appeal board panel 8
to add to those staffs a retinue of technical advisors 9
whose function would be to screen all of this material 10 to add to the staffs of the respective panels docket
.11 clerks who handle this material.
12 And I might say in the case, ~t least, of the 13 appeal panel, it might require a considerable extension 14 of our present docket room space, which is barely 15 adequate to handle the material that we now get.
16 I don't recommend that course because I don1 t 17 think it is necessary.
18 My own judgment is that it is quite possible 19 for the staff to make a judgment with respect to this 20 wealth of material with respect to whether this material 21 is of pGssible relevance to a matter the board has to 22 consider.
23 And I would back that judgment by saying that 24 it has met the test so far as I am concerned.
The staff 25 over the last three years, the life of this commission,
173.08.5 gsh 27 2
operating under the McGuire-Vogtle procedures, have been fulfilling their responsibilities along this line quite 3
satisfactorily.
4 I do not believe that there has been withheld 5
from the boards during this period of time any infotmation 6
that was of real significance to an issue that the board 7
had under consideration or the exercise of the sua sponte 8
jurisdiction might appropriately have taken under i~s 9
wing.
10 Now I realize that this has all stemmed from --
.11 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE-:
Let m.e stop now and investigate some pieces of that.
13 These comments, most recent comments, would apply 14 to the 125-odd filings that have bEen made by the staff.
15 These include a lot of external material.
16 17 18 19 MR. CASE:
Not much, but some internal.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Some internal.
(Slide.)
CHAIRMAN HENDRIS:
If the relevant and material 20 standards that you've proposed for internally generated 21 information had been in place, what-J's your guess about 22 the number of items you would send forward?
23 MR. CASE:
Certainly more, certainly more 24 internally generated information.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY.:
By a factor of what?
!73.08.6 gsh 2
MR. BOYD:
The point is we're not that systematic in the past in determining -- just look at 3
each piece of information and make a judgment.
It's 4
just as it flows.
You know, you're stimulated to 5
remember that we have to notify the boards.
28 6
However, with a systematic practice such as 7
we"re proposing, you would be dsting this information 8
as it flows.
9 Now it"s complicated further by the fact that 10 our past practice did not involve the rest of the agency, Jl the rest of the s.taff.
It involved NRR.
And.I think 12 there would be a build-up on internally generated 13 considerations as a result of expanding this ~o encompass 14 the entire staff.
15 MR. CASE:
I appreciate what Alan says~ but 16 I simply can-'t jibe ~hat weJve been sending you over the 17 last three years with a material and relevant standard.
18 It just doesn-'t fit.
It's not consistently 19 applied, and if I consisten,tly apply it, then I*'m.to 20 alternative 3.
21 Now the problem then is what should be my 22 criterion?
I say it's got to be different than material 23 and relevant, because if I use that, you're going to get 24 a lot more.
25 So I need something else.
ThatJs my problem.
73.08.7 gsh 29 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
Alternative 3 didn't really involve relevant and material standards 9 3
did it?
4 MR. BOYD:
Prior to the start _of-the hearing it 5
did not.
The same is true with alternative I.
6 7
8 MR. CASE:
Let me examine that.
(Slide.)
MR. CASE:
There-'s.no standard applied once 9
the information is generated.
But if I have to ask 10 myself is it relevant and material to my review that I ll ask the applicant _this question, it-'s got to be, or 12 else I wouldn-'t ask him ~he question.
I don-'t 13 fri vo.lously ask applicants why is their des.ign this way 14
. instead of that way?
15 It-'s got to be material to my ultimate 16 determination. If it's material to mine, how can I then 17 say it's not material to the board's?
JJve got to treat 18 them the same as I treat myself, it seems to meo 19 MR. ROSENTHAL:
It's difficult for me.to believe, 20 Ed, that every piece of paper that passes betw.een the staff 21 and the-applicant is deemed by the staff to be relevant' 22 to the question which is before the board, which is whether 23 a construction permit or operating license, as.the case 24 may be, should issue +/-or that facility, and if so, on 25 what terms and conditions?
I 73. 08. 8 gsh 30 2
Now I can-'t believe, for example, that when Vepco informed you and at the same iime informed us that 3
a crane ball had dropped three +/-eet and that a voltage 4
regulator was out of whack, that the staff.regarded that 5
kind of information as being of relevance on the question 6
as io whether Vepco should receive an operating license 7
or no
- I ju s t don*' t think so
- I t may be re l e van t in 8
terms of what the staff does in terms of its dealing with 9
Vepco on a day to day, supervisory basis *.
But that-'s not 10 what the licensing appeal boards are about.
. l l 12 MR. CASE:
Alan, at that point, I don-'t know whether that electrical thing is.just something wrong with 13 that particular one they've got, or there-'s a generic 14 problem with the design.
15 When I was first told there.,s a problem, I 16 simply don't know what it is.
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It.,s also fair to recognize 18 that there's been a fair amount of urging of the staff 19 to be liberal in the extreme in the interpretation of these 20 and --
21 MR. CASE:
The commission"'s told me, send it 22 first, evaluate it later.
23 That-"s what they told me.
24 MR.* ROSENTHAL:
The only thing that really 25 concerns me is that I do not want it to appear that the
73.08.9 gsh 31 2
boards are, in point of fact, evaluating oceans of material in circumstances where the boards aren*'t doing 3
that because, as a practical matter, they can*'t do that.
4 In short, I do not want to be operating under 5
false pretenses.
All IJm really trying to convey to the 6
commission is that, as matters now stand, given the 7
staff that we have, there is no way in which it can be 8
properly assumed that the documents that we would get 9
under alterna~ive 3 would be closely scrutinized by the 10 appeal boards or by appeal panel staff members in search 11 of some significant, possibly significant disclosure 12 1.3 14 there in.
We ju st can*' t do it.
So if it.,s coming to us on this basis, it would 15 be, in my judgment, simply a ritual.
16 MR. YORE:
I concur with Alan.
Just to give you 17 a picture* on how we.,re organized, to send all this material.
18 under alternative 3 to thr.ee member boards, we have never 19 had technical a.ssistance.
We, too, have a very small 20 docketroom.
We've got two full*-time people and one 21 part-time person trying to control what we.,ve got, and 22 the docket room is bursting
- 23 We think we have the answer to the problem now, 24 and that is, we're interested, and the boards are 25 interested, in the final position, final formal position, of
173.08.10 gsh -
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
lO l 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 the staff.
Now the pa per talks to the start of the hearing.
We don't think this is the correct point to mark it.
The final formal position of tha staff on environmental matters is contained in the final environmental statements in the site suitability statement.
That/s the time when they evaluate all this material that's g.oing on, all the questions and answer.s.
They've assesssd it,.they've evalu~ted it, and they come up with their final position.
We would say after the site suitability reports are issued, then the boards would like every piece of correspondence from that time on; that is, we go to alternative 3 with an assessment attachad to the particular document, or as snon as possible thereafter, because any of that material after that final report has been issued could change the report, might change the report.
So we would go for alternative 3 at that point.
Now on the health and safety thing, the final formal position of the staff is in the safety evaluation report.
Supplement 1 considers everything that the ACRS has brought out.
So we say have the alternative I up to the issuance of the final health and safety reports.
Then after that go into alt~rnative 3 and give us everything.
33
- 73. 08. J 1 gsh Now that 1 s our solution, our recommendation.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 l I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I 9 20 21 22 23 24 25
I 73.09. I gsh
- 34 Then we don't have all this flood of mail 2
3 prior to these final reports.
MR. CASE:
I have no problem with whatever 4
you decid~.
But with that proposal, IJve got to know 5
more specifically what, if anything, beyond what the 6
boards presently get before the start of the hearing do 7
they want.
Nothing more?
Not if the wor-1d falls down?
8 Do they want chloride seams that might be discovered 9
during the course of an applicant'~ geological investigation?
IO Under what Mr. Yore is pro posing, they would 11 get that.
12 MR. YORE:
You'd cover that in your reports.
13 MR. CASE: I don't think I would cover that 14 fact.
15 MR. YOREz And if it comes after your final 16 reports, te_ll us about it.
17 MR. CASE:
I"'m not.telling you when I find out.
18 That's what the commission told me to do under North Anna.
19 Send it ~irst, r 11 evaluate it later.
20 I"'ve got so many instructions, I can't do it.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You're a little overconstrained.
22 Thats the problem
- 23 There are some manpower costs associated with 24 these alternatives. The ones reported in the staff paper 25 did not reflect an input from the panel in the appeal
73.09.2 I gsh
- 35 board session
- MR. BOYD:
Yes, that-,s correct.
2 3
MR. CASE:
I must say they were done more for 4
comparative purposes the way we originally did them, rather 5
than for their absolute accuracy.
6 MR. BOYD:
In fact, in our view, it.J's still 7
going to be difficult to see much di+/-ference in impact 8
betw_een alternative and alternative 3, as these have 9
evolved.
10 Certainly, after the hearing, after the start
.ll of the hearing, there's not much difference.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We.11, that's not differences 13 between these approaches after the hearing starts, but 14 what is being prop::>sed over here is sort of alternative 15 three-fourths.
Lt-'s not alternative 1.
16 The reason is that your alternative requires 17 a relevant and material standard for material to be 18 filed with the boards.
And you, under present instructions, 19 would fee.lit necessary to interpret that in a very 20 liberal sense with regard to internally generated 21 information.
22 I assume that all of the external material, even 23 24 25 now in effect, goes.
Okay?
MR. CASE:
That's not.so, not before the hearing.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Not before the hearing?
73.09.3 gsh..
fl>
2 36 MR. CASE:
They do not get our questions.
Everybody else, all parties to the proceedings but the 3
boards get them.
4 5
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If somebody filed you, ---
MR. BOYD:
There is a difference.
We have 6
a slide on this if you'd like to see it.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: At any rate, that emphasizes 8
the point even more.
9 What I-'m saying is that you don't seem much 10 difference between alternative 1 and 3 because the Jl difference between them is only that in one you would 12 exercise relevant and material standard and you feel 13 you would have to interpret that so liberally that it
.14 would turn out to be the next thing to everything.
15 16 MR. CASE:
That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What's being said over here 17 is-quite different.
It's being said here that that*'s too 18 loose a standard to apply and that there ought to be some 19 suitable standard which would really very much limit the 20 number of pieces of paper over and above the staff-'s 21 final er-ivironmental statement, safety evaluation report.
22 23 24 MR. CASE:
I think that's what Alan is saying but I don't think that's what Jim is saying.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: They sounded an awful lot 25 alike to me.
73.0Y.4 gsh 37 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There was some difference.
2 3
MR. BOYD:
There is a difference that will give 4
us some problem in trying to interpret what Mr. Yore 5
suggests as a way to go.
But could I go through a couple 6
of slides that show, I hope, the differences between these 7
alternatives.
8 I have two slides that focus on this.
In fact, 9
one deals with before the hearing starts and the other 10 after the hearing starts.
-11 (Slide.)
12 If you focus on the differences before the 13 hearing starts, you find in alternative l today the boards 14 are getting the SA~, the ER, all the amendments, the FES, 15 the site suitability report, our SER, all the supplements, 16 and any hearing-related matters between the parties, 17 discovery hearing-related matters and everything, plus 18 everybody's direct testimony.
And all of this stuff is 19 coming during the course of the review.
20 Under alternative 3 before the start of the 21 hearing, we would, of couse, continue all of this and 22 add another pile of information, which we estimated in one 23 particular case to be about 18 inches high.
24 This additional information turns out to be things 25 like questions to the applicant, staff positions to the
73.09.5 gsh 2
3 4
38 applicant, meeting memorandum.
You have a meeting with the applicant.
We indicate what happened and what posi~ions were taken, things like that.
There are other staff documents ~hat are 5
generated for one reason or another with the PDR.
TheyJre 6
made available to the public, they' re sent to the parties.
7 We proposed under alternative 3 to send these routinely 8
to the board.
We receive consultant reports from the ACRS, 9
usually before the ACRS meeting.
10 The opinions of these consultants in these 11 12 reports, these we propose to retain and so forth.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I notice Pve also got a filing 13 from the advisory committee executive secretary that 14 says, look, some of our consultants.report in writing and 15 not always.
Some of them report orally.
And if you get 16 sort of an odd mix of file consultants reports, sup)X)se 17 the people who think that.a thing is not safe and have 18 said so orally, and all the consultants who say itJs 19 great have said so in writing.
And the only things you 20 put in the record are the writing things.
21 You've got a distorted opinion.
And the view 22 of the ACRS is youJre much better off dealing with the 23 considered view of the committee in shaking all of this 24 material down, rather than simply filing on the record 25 of the case.
gsh 2
3 39 MR. CASE:_ But it"s in the public document room.
The same material is in the public document room.
MR. BOYD:
And it has been sent to the staff.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You would -have reduced 5
it to some kind of memorandum, wouldn"t you, if you got 6
an oral statement.
7 MR~ CASE:
The Chairman is talking about ACRs.*
8 They sometimes report orally their meetings.
9 10 11 12 MR. BOYD:
To the committee.
MR. CASE:
Many of which are transcribed.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Look, I'll tell you where I corns out at 10 minu~es after 4:00 in the afternoon.
13 The staff has a problem. I at least recognize the problem 14 as a very big one.
15 The licensing staff needs some instructions from 16 the comrni ssion.
It-"~- no_w operating under a set of 17 instructions which, as you feel compelled to interpret 18 them, just are very difficult.
19 Now there is a paper here with a couple of 20 alternatives in it, but they are alternatives seen through 21 the staff's eyes.
Okay?
22 23 I would very much like to see what the panel and appeal board point of view might be if it could be reflected 24 as a policy option, to SBe if there is there the possibility 25 of definitions of policy directions which would make sense,
- 73. 09. 7 2
40 fill all the needs, avoid some of the difficulties.
MR. CASE:
I "d like to suggest we maybe reverse 3
what we've just done here.
I would love to have a proposal 4
from them and see if, in seeing that, whether we think it 5
makes sense and can live with it, as they have reacted 6
to our proposal.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I don~t know.
What are the 8
practicalities? I'll talk to Jim.
He has more people.
9 MR. YORE:
Well, I can't argue about that.
10 No, we'll get together.
WeJd be happy to do it.
11 12 13 14 15, some thing?
You mean get together with Al to try and work up CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
MR. YORE:
Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Which would be either an 16 addendum to, or perhaps worked into, an amended paper, staff 17 paper, which would reflect the views of the manpower costs, 18 because I think those are of interest.
19 It has to deal with problems that the staff has 20 in interpreting in view of the instructions given to date, 21 relevancy and-materiality.
22 23 24 MR. YORE:
As far as I "m concerned, IJm ready to work to try to come up with something.
MR.. ROSENTHAL:
I think, if I may say so, 25 Chairman Hendrie~ one of the things that the commission may
173.09.8 gsh 2
41 have to focus on is the matter of how it regards sua sponte responsibilities of the boards, because I tend to 3
think that the staff perceives those responsibilities as 4
being *broader than I frankly perceive them.*
And I think 5
this is intimately involved in this whole question.
6 7
MR. CASE:
I agree.
MR. ROSENTHAL:
Because how much information 8
should be routinely supplied to the board obviously 9
hinges, at least in part, up:>n what the breadth of the 10 boards/ responsibilities are.
11 MR. YORE:
This is particularly true with 12 reference to the operating license cases.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it would be appropriate 14 to address some remarks to that point to see whether itJs 15 practical and whether the commission, in fact, is able 16 to come to a consensus and more precisely define.
It may 17 not be.
It/ s been a matter which has sort of existed 18 through the years, and I donJt recall it ever having been 19 very precisely defined.
20 MR. ROSENTHAL:
You heard Howard Shapar 21 characterize it as an ombudsman role.
And I would have to 22 say that while that term is somewhat amorphous, I would 23 have to dispute that that is our role, at least as I 24 presently understand it.
25 And this is one of the reasons why I think that
'73.09.9 gsh 2
42 this is really part of the whole question.
MR. CA$E=
It's clear our proposal was in that 3
sense that it was an ombudsman-'s role, I believe.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
Well, _I would ask 5
for some further work here.
6 By the way, I thought the sex of slides were 7
very good.
I'm sorry you didn't get all the way through 8
them, but I think you'll be able to use most of them 9
10 1 l 12 1.3 again.
MR. BOYD:
You don't need to worry about that, Mr. Chairman.
I found the paper was hard enough to write.
But when I got to the point of the proposed instructions from the EDO back to the staff, that flowed just 14 beautifully. Then when I got to the point of trying to 15 create the slide, that was the easiest part of it.
16 But I've now come to the point where this is 17 totally. saturated, and we. just reuse.
We don't need to 18 work on it any more, as far as I'm concerned.
19 MR. CASE*:
We appreciate the time.
It-'s a 20 dif~icult subject.
21 (Whereupon, at 4: 15 p.m., the hearing was 22 concluded.)
23 24 25