ML23352A124
| ML23352A124 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/18/2023 |
| From: | Mary Spencer NRC/OGC |
| To: | Susan Vrahoretis NRC/OGC |
| References | |
| Download: ML23352A124 (1) | |
Text
December 18, 2023
MEMORANDUM TO: Susan H. Vrahoretis, Assistant General Counsel Reactor Programs Office of the General Counsel
FROM: Michael A. Spencer, Senior Attorney Reactor Programs Office of the General Counsel
SUBJECT:
REPORT SUMMARIZING LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE ITAAC HEARING PROCESS FOR VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4
This report summarizes the U.S. Nuclear Regulat ory Commission (NRC) staffs review of what lessons may be learned from the hearing process associated with closure of the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC ) in the combined licenses for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle) Units 3 and 4. The NRC conducted the Vogtle ITAAC hearing process using procedures previously approved by the Commission. 1 When approving these procedures, the Commission directed the NRC staff to perform a lessons learned review upon completion of the ITAAC hearings, if held, for Vogtle Units 3 and 4, and Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (V.C. Summer) Units 2 and 3, and to propose changes to these procedures, as appropriate. 2
The ITAAC hearing process was initiated only for Vogtle Units 3 and 4. 3 The NRC received one hearing request for Vogtle Unit 3, which was denied, and received no hearing request for Vogtle Unit 4. The NRC staff held a public meeting on the lessons that might be learned from the Vogtle ITAAC hearing process and received views from one external stakeholder.
After considering these views and the NRCs expe rience, the NRC staff has determined that the NRC implemented the Vogtle ITAAC hearing process in accordance with the Commission-approved procedures for that process. Also, the NRC staff has not identified changes that should be made to the existing procedures based on the limited ITAAC hearing experience for Vogtle Units 3 and 4. This conclusion that no ch anges are warranted is limited to experience with Vogtle. The NRC staff recognizes that the Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures were developed when licensees were pursuing large light-water reactors with numerous ITAAC. As
1 Final Procedures for Conducting Hearings on Conformance With the Acceptance Criteria in Combined Licenses, 81 Fed. Reg. 43,266 (July 1, 2016) (Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures).
2 Staff Requirements - SECY-15-0010 - Final Procedures for Hearings on Conformance With the Acceptance Criteria in Combined Licenses, at 2 (Apr. 1, 2016) (ADAMS Accession No. ML16092A102).
3 The NRC did not initiate the ITAAC hearing process for V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3 because the licensee halted construction and the combined licenses were terminated.
explained below, the nuclear industry is currently contemplating smaller reactors with significantly fewer ITAAC than the recently completed Vogtle reactorsthese smaller reactors also might be constructed on very short schedules. In addition, ongoing rulemaking initiatives might result in a need to revise the ITAAC hearing procedures. The NRC staff would further engage with the Commission if the NRC staff determines that new information warrants a change to the existing procedures.
Background Information on the ITAAC Hearing Procedures
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), requires the NRC to identify ITAAC within the combined license to verify that the facility has been constructed and will be operated in accordance with the license, the AEA, and the NRCs rules and regulations.4 The NRC must ensure that the licensee completes the inspections, tests, and analyses, and must find prior to operation that the acceptance criteria are met.5 The NRC conducts inspections and reviews licensee ITAAC notifications under 10 C.F.R. § 52.99(c) to determine whether a licensee has successfully completed the ITAAC in its license.
The AEA provides a hearing opportunity on whether the acceptance criteria in the ITAAC are satisfied.6 This hearing opportunity is subject to the following requirements from AEA
§ 189a.(1)(B):
The NRC shall publish a notice of intended operation in the Federal Register at least 180 days before the scheduled date for initial loading of fuel by the combined license holder.
The notice of intended operation shall provide that persons whose interest may be affected by plant operation may within 60 days request a hearing on whether the facility as constructed complies, or on completion will comply, with the acceptance criteria of the license.
A hearing request shall show, prima facie, that one or more of the acceptance criteria in the combined license have not been, or will not be met, and the specific operational consequences of nonconformance that would be contrary to providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety.
The NRC shall expeditiously decide whether to grant or deny the hearing request.
If the hearing request is granted, the NRC shall allow a period of interim operation if the NRC determines, after considering the petitioners prima facie showing and any answers thereto, that there will be reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety during interim operation.
The NRC has discretion to use informal or formal adjudicatory procedures and must state its reasons therefor.
The NRC shall, to the maximum possible extent, render a decision on the issues raised by the hearing request within 180 days of the notice of intended operation or by the scheduled initial fuel load date, whichever is later.
The NRCs regulatory requirements for ITAAC hearings are in 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.105, 2.309, 2.310(j), 2.340, 2.341, and 52.103. These regulations do not provide much detail on how to
4 AEA § 185b.
5 Id.
6 AEA § 189a.(1)(B).
conduct ITAAC proceedings because, as stated in § 2.310(j), ITAAC hearings shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures designated by the Commission in each proceeding.
A. Development of the ITAAC Hearing Procedures
To enhance the predictability and efficiency of the ITAAC hearing process, the NRC developed generalized procedures that could be quickly and easily adapted to the specific features of individual proceedings. The NRC published the proposed ITAAC procedures for comment on April 18, 2014.7 After considering the comments it had received, the NRC published the final procedures on July 1, 2016.8 The final procedures include pre-approved templates for case-specific orders with procedures for the hearing. These templates are the presumed default basis for the procedural orders to be used in a particular case, but consistent with § 2.310(j), the Commission may direct the use of other procedures.9 The use of case-specific orders allows the NRC to tailor the procedures to the specific matters in controversy and to swiftly implement lessons learned from the first ITAAC hearings in future proceedings.10
B. General Summary of the ITAAC Hearing Procedures
The Commission chose an overall objective of developing an efficient, feasible process that is consistent with established requirements and policy and provides the presiding officer and the parties with a fair opportunity to develop a sound record for decision.11 The Commission achieved this objective by using a general approach involving (1) the use of the NRCs existing hearing regulations, with appropriate modifications, (2) an evidentiary hearing format based on 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart L, and (3) an expedited and streamlined hearing process.
The NRC chose to use the existing 10 C.F.R. Part 2 procedures with modifications to account for the expedited schedule and specialized nature of ITAAC hearings. The NRC used the existing rules because they have proven effective in promoting a fair and efficient process, there is a body of precedent underlying them, and potential hearing participants would find it easier to apply the procedures if they are familiar with the existing rules.12
The Commission based the evidentiary hearing format on the Subpart L approach that is used in most licensing proceedings. Consistent with Subpart L, ITAAC evidentiary hearings involve written testimony and position statements with subsequent questioning by the presiding officer at an oral hearing. The presiding officer would be a licensing board or a single legal judge assisted, as appropriate, by technical advisors. The NRC chose a Subpart L approach for several reasons, such as the greater level of clarity and precision that written testimony allows
7 Proposed Procedures for Conducting Hearings on Whether Acceptance Criteria in Combined Licenses Are Met, 79 Fed. Reg. 21,958 (Apr. 18, 2014) (Proposed ITAAC Hearing Procedures).
8 Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures, 81 Fed. Reg. at 43,266.
9 Id. at 43,268.
10 Id. at 43,267.
11 Id. at 43,269.
12 Id.
on technical matters, and the advantage an oral hearing has in enabling the presiding officer to quickly and efficiently probe the parties positions as presented in their written testimony.13
To meet the AEAs schedule goal for ITAAC hearings, the Commission shortened regulatory deadlines and required testimony and position statements to be prepared immediately after the hearing request is granted. The Commission also streamlined ITAAC hearings by eliminating processes that were not necessary for ITAAC hearings (e.g., summary disposition) and limiting other processes (e.g., interlocutory appeals) to situations where they provided a substantial benefit. Finally, the Commission added rigor to the hearing schedule by requiring motions for extension of time to show unavoidable and extreme circumstances and by establishing a strict deadline for the presiding officers decision after any hearing.
As a result of these choices, the Commission developed a process for completing ITAAC hearings within 209 days of publication of the notice of intended operation. This 209-day period includes a 60-day period for filing hearing requests, 25 days for the licensee and NRC staff to answer the hearing request, 30 days after these answers for the Commission to determine whether to grant the hearing request, and up to 94 days thereafter to complete a hearing and issue a decision after the granting of a hearing request. To ensure that the hearing process is completed by scheduled initial fuel load, the Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures provide that the NRC will publish the notice of intended operation at least 210 days before scheduled initial fuel load. To build margin into the schedule, the NRC may publish the notice up to 75 days earlier than this if the licensee voluntarily submits certain notifications, called uncompleted ITAAC notifications, earlier than required.14 Figure 1 presents a summary of the ITAAC hearing timeline if the notice of intended operation is published 210 days before scheduled initial fuel load.
13 Id. at 43,282.
14 In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 52.99(c)(3), licensees must submit uncompleted ITAAC notifications at least 225 days before scheduled initial fuel load for all ITAAC for which the licensee has not submitted an ITAAC closure notification. Consistent with NRC guidance, the uncompleted ITAAC notifications summarize the licensees methodology for completing those ITAAC that have not yet been completed. The licensees submission of § 52.99(c) ITAAC notifications describing how it has completed or will complete all ITAAC in the license supports the ITAAC hearing process by providing a source of information from the licensee that petitioners may challenge. As required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vii), contentions in an ITAAC hearing must identify the specific portion of the report required by 10 CFR 52.99(c) which the requestor believes is inaccurate, incorrect, and/or incomplete[.]
Figure 1: ITAAC Hearing Timeline
There are two evidentiary hearing tracks (Track 1 and Track 2). A Track 1 hearing involves written direct testimony and written rebuttal testimony, followed by an oral hearing. Track 2 is like Track 1 except that there is no written rebuttal testimony. The Appendix to this report provides a detailed breakdown of the Track 1 and Track 2 evidentiary hearing schedules. The Legal Contention Track is for legal contentions (i.e., contentions on legal matters), which are rarely encountered in NRC practice. For a legal contention, the parties would submit briefs on the legal issues but not offer witness testimony.
The Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures include several distinctive features in addition to those recounted above, such as:
Claims of Incompleteness: Consistent with the AEAs requirement that a hearing request in an ITAAC proceeding must include a prima facie showing, 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vii) requires contentions in ITAAC proceedings to include this prima facie showing before the contention may be admitted. However, § 2.309(f)(1)(vii) allows petitioners to claim that a licensee notification under § 52.99(c) is incomplete and that this incompleteness prevents the petitioner from making the necessary prima facie showing. Such claims are termed claims of incompleteness. The Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures state the standards such claims must satisfy and provide that if the Commission determines that a claim of incompleteness is valid, the license must supply additional information and the petitioner may file a contention on this information.15
Commission Involvement: The Commission decided to be more heavily involved in ITAAC hearings than is typical for most other NRC hearings. In addition to its usual function of deciding on appeals of presiding officer decisions, the Commission would
15 Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures, 81 Fed. Reg. at 43,283.
(1) decide whether to grant the hearing request, (2) issue the procedures for the hearing if a hearing request is granted, (3) ordinarily rule on hearing requests, new or amended contentions, and claims of incompleteness after the original deadline for hearing requests, (4) make the adequate protection determination for interim operation, and (5) serve as the presiding officer for hearings on legal contentions.
Pre-clearance Background Check for Access to Safeguards Information (SGI): In accordance with the Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures, the notice of intended operation is accompanied by an order providing procedures for potential parties to request access to SGI. This process is not unusual, but to prevent background checks for access to SGI from becoming a barrier to timely public participation in the ITAAC hearing process, the Commission decided to publish a notice offering a pre-clearance process for potential parties to seek a background check for access to SGI (pre-clearance notice).16 The NRC would publish such notices on a plant-specific basis 420 days before scheduled initial fuel load. While participation in the pre-clearance process is voluntary, the Commission stated that the NRC will not delay its actions in completing the hearing or making the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding because of delays from background checks for persons seeking access to SGI.17
Summary of ITAAC Hearing Experience for Vogtle Units 3 and 4
A. Vogtle Unit 3 Experience
For Vogtle Unit 3, the NRC published a pre-clearance notice on October 11, 2019.18 No one requested a background check in response to this notice. The NRC published the notice of intended operation and associated procedural orders for Vogtle Unit 3 on February 12, 2020.19 On April 3, 2020, Nuclear Watch South filed a request to extend the deadlines for hearing requests and for requests for access to sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI) or SGI to 60 days from the official lifting of the national COVID-19 emergency.20 The Secretary granted Nuclear Watch South a seven-day extension to the hearing request deadline and denied the requested extension to the deadline for requesting access to SUNSI and SGI.21
16 Id. at 43,282.
17 Id.
18 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 3; Background Check Process for Participation in ITAAC Proceeding, 84 Fed. Reg. 54,928.
19 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 3; Hearing Opportunity Associated With Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria, 85 Fed. Reg. 8030.
20 Nuclear Watch Souths Request for Extension of Filing Deadline and Request for Expedited Consideration, at 1 (Apr. 3, 2020) (ML20094K978).
21 Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 3), Order of the Secretary (addressing extension request) (Apr. 9, 2020) (unpublished) (ML20100K256).
Nuclear Watch South filed a hearing request on the new due date and proposed a single contention.22 The licensee, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, and the NRC staff filed answers to the hearing request by the deadline for answers.23 The Commission denied the hearing request on June 15, 2020.24 The Commission concluded that Nuclear Watch South had not shown standing and that its proposed contention met neither the admissibility criteria for contentions nor the standards for claims of incompleteness.25
On August 3, 2022, the NRC made the finding under 10 C.F.R. § 52.103(g) that all acceptance criteria in the ITAAC for Vogtle Unit 3 are met.26 As provided by 10 C.F.R. § 52.103(h), the ITAAC are no longer requirements for the licensee after the § 52.103(g) finding is made.
B. Vogtle Unit 4 Experience
For Vogtle Unit 4, the NRC published a pre-clearance notice on November 25, 2020,27 and no background check was requested. The NRC published the notice of intended operation and associated procedural orders for Vogtle Unit 4 on February 2, 2022,28 and no hearing request was filed. On July 28, 2023, the NRC made the finding under § 52.103(g) that all acceptance criteria in the ITAAC for Vogtle Unit 4 are met.29
Discussion of NRC Staff and External Stakeholder Perspectives on Lessons Learned
As explained below, the NRC implemented the Vogtle ITAAC hearing process in accordance with the Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures, and the procedures worked as intended. From its limited experience, the NRC staff has not identified any needed changes to the procedures.
Only one external stakeholder provided perspectives on lessons learned from the Vogtle ITAAC
22 Nuclear Watch South Petition for Public Hearing (Apr. 20, 2020) (ML20111C447).
23 Licensees Answer to Nuclear Watch Souths Petition for Public Hearing (May 15, 2020)
(ML20136A450); NRC Staff Answer to Petition for Public Hearing from Nuclear Watch South (May 14, 2020) (ML20135H286).
24 Southern Nuclear Operating Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 3), CLI-20-6, 91 NRC 225 (2020).
25 The Commission addressed the requirements for both contentions and claims of incompleteness because it was not certain whether Nuclear Watch Southa pro se petitionerintended its filing to be treated as a claim of incompleteness or a freestanding contention. Id. at 231.
26 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 3; Operation Under a Combined License, 87 Fed. Reg. 48,201 (Aug. 8, 2022).
27 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 4; Background Check Process for Participation in ITAAC Proceeding, 85 Fed. Reg. 75,380.
28 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 4; Hearing Opportunity Associated With Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria, 87 Fed. Reg. 5851.
29 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 4; Operation Under a Combined License, 88 Fed. Reg. 50,919 (Aug. 2, 2023).
hearing process. This stakeholder largely supported the existing procedures and suggested only one changeto resolve simple factual disputes with a hearing format, based on 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart N, that would involve oral, but not written, testimony. However, as discussed below, this suggestion is not founded on experience from the Vogtle ITAAC hearing process, and the Commission previously considered the same suggestion when originally developing the Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures. Neither the comment nor Vogtle experience offers a basis for revisiting the Commissions prior decision.
The NRC did not gain experience with many aspects of the ITAAC hearing process, including evidentiary hearings, interim operation decisions, appeals, or requests for access to sensitive unclassified information. If and when the NRC gains experience with these aspects of the ITAAC hearing process, the NRC would be able to determine whether that experience supports altering the associated hearing procedures.
Also, the NRC staff acknowledges that the Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures were developed in consideration of large light-water reactors with numerous ITAAC (e.g., the Vogtle Unit 3 license had 875 ITAAC when the procedures were developed). The nuclear industry is now exploring the use of smaller reactors with significantly fewer ITAAC, including microreactors with thermal outputs hundreds of times smaller than Vogtle Units 3 and 4. Further, factory-fabricated microreactors might have very short construction timeframes (from days to a few months, depending on the design).30 Also, current rulemaking processes might result in a need to revise the ITAAC hearing procedures; these include the 10 C.F.R. Part 53 rulemaking and the rulemaking to align the 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 52 licensing processes and apply lessons learned from new reactor licensing. It is currently premature, and outside the scope of this lessons learned report, to consider whether ongoing initiatives might warrant specific changes to the ITAAC hearing procedures. However, there may be occasion in the future, when more information is available, to consider such changes.
A. NRC Staff Perspectives
The NRC staff concludes that the NRC implemented the Vogtle ITAAC hearing process in accordance with the policies set forth in the Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures and that nothing occurred during that process that would support a change to the existing procedures. The Federal Register notices and associated case-specific orders comported with the templates previously approved by the Commission. As related previously, only one motion for extension of time and one hearing request were filed in the Vogtle Unit 3 proceeding. The Secretary of the Commission promptly ruled on the motion, which resulted in a minor extension to the hearing request deadline. The Commission issued its decision denying the sole hearing request by the 30-day milestone in the Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures. The Commission did not identify a need to deviate from the provisions in the notice of intended operation and case-specific orders.
30 Consistent with the definition of construction in 10 C.F.R. § 50.10(a), the reference to construction here refers to in-place assembly, fabrication, erection, installation, testing, etc. at the final location where the reactor is to be operated and does not include similar activities occurring at the factory.
B. External Stakeholder Perspectives
The NRC held a public meeting to gather perspectives from external stakeholders on lessons learned from the ITAAC hearing process for Vogtle Units 3 and 4.31 The only external views came from an attorney who was lead counsel for the licensee during the Vogtle Unit 3 ITAAC proceeding. This attorney provided the following comments in his slides and orally during the meeting:
Attempting to draw lessons learned on the ITAAC hearing process from Vogtle Units 3 and 4 is challenging because there were no evidentiary hearings, but licensee and NRC staff experience leading up to the resolution of the Vogtle Unit 3 ITAAC hearing petition provides some lessons that could be useful in future proceedings.
One of the biggest concerns was with how the NRC and licensees would deal with multiple ITAAC challenges (5, 10, or 20 challenges) in the compressed timeframe for ITAAC proceedings.
The NRCs engagement with stakeholders and the public during the development of the ITAAC hearing procedures contributed significant improvements to a first-of-a-kind hearing process. In addition, publishing the procedures well in advance of the hearing process assisted in the predictability and efficiency of that process, in particular by allowing external participants to understand the requirements ahead of time.
The hearing procedures effectively balance timely resolution of contentions, which are expected to be technical in nature, with a robust process that provides a fair hearing to intervenors.
The NRCs choice to base the default hearing process on 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart L, makes the most sense, but the procedures also provide flexibility to adapt the hearing process to the particular issues in the case.
The opportunity for early submission of uncompleted ITAAC notifications and the consequent early publication of the notice of intended operation builds margin into the process, which would be especially important for particularly complex ITAAC challenges or multiple ITAAC challenges. Critical to this process was early engagement between the licensee and the NRC staff on uncompleted ITAAC notifications so that complete and adequate notifications could be submitted as early as possible. These are crucial lessons learned, and the NRC should encourage licensees to engage with the NRC early on uncompleted ITAAC notifications and to submit them early.
Depending on the issues in the case, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart N, with only oral hearings and no written testimony could be conducted much more quickly. The NRC should consider using a Subpart N approach. The Subpart N process could be used for simple factual contentions such as whether or not a specific metric was met during a test (e.g., a dispute over a visual observation of a reading, such as whether the light was red or green). Subpart N might not be well suited to a contention that is more technical or involves a lot of engineering analysis.
The Commission faithfully implemented the procedures, and complied with the schedules and policy underlying them, in resolving the sole contention in the Vogtle Unit 3 ITAAC proceeding.
31 The meeting notice, meeting summary, and two slide presentations (one from the NRC staff and one from an external stakeholder) are available at ADAMS Package No. ML23304A025.
The NRC staff agrees that the limited ITAAC hearing experience for Vogtle Units 3 and 4 limits the lessons that can be drawn from that experience. The NRC staff also agrees with the commenter on the value of external engagement and transparency in the development of the procedures and that the procedures provide a fair, robust process for timely and appropriately resolving disputes on ITAAC. Further, early submission of uncompleted ITAAC notifications did build margin into the ITAAC hearing schedule, and early NRC review of these notifications allowed the NRC staff to identify any information deficiencies in the notifications. Finally, the NRC staff agrees that the Commission did not deviate from established hearing procedures and policies during the Vogtle Unit 3 ITAAC proceeding.
The commenter made only one suggestion to change the procedures, i.e., to use a Subpart N approach for evidentiary hearings involving simple factual disputes. In the final rule promulgating Subpart N, the Commission explained that Subpart N is intended to be a fast track process for the expeditious resolution of issues in cases where the contentions are few and not particularly complex, and therefore may be efficiently addressed in a short hearing using simple procedures and oral presentations.32 Subpart N does not prohibit written testimony,33 so the NRC staff understands the comment as suggesting a Subpart N-like approach with no written testimony.
The NRC staff has determined that there is no basis at this time to recommend that the Commission add a Subpart N-like approach to the ITAAC hearing procedures. The commenters suggestion to use Subpart N does not relate to lessons learned from Vogtle ITAAC hearing experience because there was no evidentiary hearing, nor was the single contention proffered in the Vogtle Unit 3 proceeding limited to a simple factual dispute of the kind referred to in the comment. Also, the Commission previously considered and rejected the use of Subpart N for ITAAC hearings because the NRC does not have sufficient experience to conclude that the issues to be resolved in an ITAAC hearing will be simple enough to profitably employ the procedures of subpart N and forego the advantages accruing from written testimony and statements of position.34 The NRCs limited experience with the Vogtle Unit 3 ITAAC proceeding does not alter this conclusion. Moreover, the Commission previously considered detailed comments on the Proposed ITAAC Hearing Procedures advocating the use of a Subpart N-like approach without written testimony for ITAAC hearings. The Commission noted that these proposals did not seem workable and that making them workable would erase any schedule advantage they might have over the Subpart L-like approaches developed by the NRC.35
32 Changes to Adjudicatory Process, 69 Fed. Reg. 2182, 2214-15 (Jan. 14, 2004) (final rule).
33 Subpart N requires the parties to provide a written summary of the oral and written testimony of each proposed witness at the prehearing conference. 10 C.F.R. § 2.1404(b) (emphasis added).
34 Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures, 81 Fed. Reg. at 43,282.
35 Comment Summary ReportProcedures for Conducting Hearings on Whether Acceptance Criteria in Combined Licenses Are Met, at 52 (June 2016) (ML16167A464).
- Concurrence by email OFFICE OGC/RP OGC/RP* NRR/VPO*
NAME MASpencer SVrahoretis LNist DATE 11/17/2023 12/13/2023 12/13/2023