ML20148P802

From kanterella
Revision as of 01:02, 23 June 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Fifth Annual Rept of ASLBP for FY86
ML20148P802
Person / Time
Issue date: 03/31/1988
From: Cotter B
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To: Asselstine, Roberts, Zech
NRC, NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8804120201
Download: ML20148P802 (1)
v • d • e


Text

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

t gg.9 Rf Ch

[

  • UNITED ST ATE S i

-[* ~ I c, ? ' ,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  !

t ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL

<, ,c W ASHINGTON, D C. 20%S March 31, 1987 i

  • MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Zech  !

- Commissioner Roberts  ;

! Commissioner Asselstine I Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Carr t FROM: 8. Paul cotter, Jr.

Chief Administrativd Judge i i

SUBJECT:

FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY  !

AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL: FISCAL YEAR  !

1986 The attached Annual Report details an increase over FY 1985 l in cases closed, volume of filings, and issues resolved  !

before hearing. New cases filed increased 150% over the  ;

average for the preceding five years.

l These increases were predicted (although underestimated) in '

my March 1985 Five-Year Plan. More recently, last year's ,

i budget process for FY 88 and 89 underestimated the FY 86 a'id '

87 workload as a basis for future workload projections. I [

understand OGC is now finding that ELD underestimated the caseload last year (even more than ASLBP) and now are having-i to reassign resources to meet scheduled requirements.

j I believe the Commission should carefully revisit staffing '

needs for its adjudicatory responsibilities in Fiscal Years j j 1988 and 1989.  :

l Attachment '

l ASLBP Annual Report

for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1986 l
cc (w/ enc.)
}

l ACRS >

ASLAP i E00  !

! OGC (Parler, Cimstead) [

l PA  :

l RM (Mcdonald, Amenta) {

SECY l

i 8804120201 880331 l h41 201 PDR j

)

J

h ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B0ARD PANEL For The Fiscal Year Ended Septenber 30, 1986 B Paul Cotter, Jr.

Chief Administrative Judge 87 C 'l17 $ ANE Y'ly

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING. BOARD PANEL

- For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1986 Table of Contents Page EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

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

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY: HEARING EFFICIENCIES ........... 1 A.

Fiscal Year 1986 Caseload Overview ....... I B. Public Health and Safety ............ 3

1. Opera ting Licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 l t

2.

, Show Ca'i se . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 l

l

3. Civil Penalty ............... 4 I
4. Special Proceedings ............ 4 C.

Hea ring Efficiencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 III.

ORGANIZATION AND PERSONNEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,

7 A. Administra tive Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '7 B.

Professional Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. Professional and Support Staff ......... 9

1. Legal and Technical Staff . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Administrative Staff ......... .. 10

-i-i i

PaHe IV. IMPROVEMENTS IN HEARING ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT .................... 11 A. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 11 B. Computerized Proceeding Records .......... 12 C- Court Reporting Contiact ............ 13

'i . CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A: General and Historical Statistical Data Appendix B: Licensing Panel Professional Personnel Appendix C: Organization Chart Table 1: Contentions, Days of Hearing, and Age:

FY 1986 Operating License Cases Table 2: SAME: FY 1986 License Amer.du nt Cases Table 3: SAME: FY 1986 Construction Permit Cases  !

Table 4: SAME: FY 1986 Spent Fuel Pool and Transshipment Cases Table 5: SAME: FY 1986 Special Proceedings Table 6: SAME: FY 1986 Other Proceedings Table 7: SAME: FY 1986 Suspended Cases Table 8: SAME: FY 1986 Closed Cases Table 9: Analysis of Types of Contentions and Their Disposition Table 10: Slippages in Operating License Proceedings l

1

-ii-l

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Fiscal Year 1986 marked a major transition in the Panel's hearing wo.k six years af ter the Three Mile Island  !

event. The Panel's principal work during that six year I

, period, hearings on construction permits and operating i license applications, was largely replaced in Fiscal Year 1986 by hearings arising out of licensed nuclear operations.

. Nevertheless, five nuclear power plant units were approved for full power licenses during the year. That brought to 40 the number of such units approved by Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards since Three Mile Island. Proceedings <

concerning 17 units remained on the docket at the close of  !

FY 1986. More significantly for the future, new filings for 11 different types of cases in FY 1986 increased 150% over the average for the preceding five years.

l That caseload growth caused a 28% increase in documents handled over the prior year. In addition, the remaining  !

operating license cases increased substantially in size and complexity, requiring either multiple boards to deal with  ;

one case or an extraordinary number of hearing days (e.g. 97 days in Braidwood), or both. Despite a 21% reduction in  !

personnel over the prior year, the Panel's judges completed l a slightly larger number of cases and reduced the average i age of all cases on the docket. '

In anticipation of further FTE reductions in FY 1987 and 1988, the Panel stepped up efforts during FY 1986 to establish its Computer Assistance Project (CAP) to attain the efficiencies achievable through automation. Substantial progress was made toward establishing a system for computer capture of the full-text of the record in each case, a

ystem that will be a first of its kind in the country when completed.

Highlights of the report are as follows:

A. Docket Data '

0 CASELOAD: New cases filed increased 160% over FY 1985. Some $61 billion worth of nuclear facilities were considered in 16 operating license proceedings concerning 18 units. The remaining 42 proceedings on the docket were of 11 different types, the largest single category being license amendments.

ES-1 s

a - t 0 OPERATING LICENSES: Licensing Boards cuthorized operation of five nuclear power plant units by Initial Decisions: Limerick 1 and 2, Shearon Harris 1, and South Texas 1 and 2.

There were 16 operating license boards addressing issues conc'erning 17 units at the close of FY 1986.

O CONTENTIONS: For all operating license cases on the docket, 92.1% of the contentions were resolved before trial, leaving only 7.9% for hearing. See Table 1.

0 HEARINGS: The Licensing Boards held 172 days of hearings (111 trial days and 61 prehearing conference days), representing over 450 Administrative Judge hearing days.

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

Septenber 30, 1986) was 27 months, a very significant decrease of 27% over FY 1985.. '

See Append x A, pp. A-5, A-6. The average age of all operating license cases on the docket'was 58 months, a 15% increase over ,

last year reflecting the age of 'n pacted cases liks Braidwood, Comanche Peak, Shoreham, and South Texas (a substantial portion of this docket time was caused by construction problems and waiting for revised documents).

O civil PENALTY: There were four appeals f rom civil penalties on the docket during the year, in contrast to only one in FY 1985. (Some $4.7 million in penalties uere assessed in F.Y 1986).

O COMPLETED PROCEEDINGS: Of 58 proceedings (including three cases with multiple boards) on the docket during the year, 24, or 41% of all preceedings were completed.

B. Administration 0 STAFFING: Panel personnel totaled 41 full-time and 1 part-time in FY 1986 (plus 26 part-time Administrative Judges available when needed),

ES-2

~

a 21% reduction in staffing over the previous year. The average age of the Panel's full-time Administrative Judges was 56. Some 11 of the Panel's part-time judges served in 8 proceedings during the year. This valuable resource has shrunk substantially in recent years, from 44 in 1978 to 22 today.

O COMPUTER ASSISTANCE PROJECT: The Panel made substartial progress in the Computer Assistance Project (CAP) with the cooperation of IRH and NMSS. The CAP program is based on using off-the-shelf PCs and software available through Commission automation programs to fully automate itformation processing, record searching, and decision-writing in individual cases, as well as Licensing Panel record keeping (the latter to eliminate mainframe costs and establish more flexible, responsive' reporting systems). CAP will expedite the hearing process as a whole, particularly large individual, impacted cases. The office should be fully automated well before the enormous MRS and High Level Waste Repository cases are filed.

The information and data in this report of transactions and proceedings Continues to support the conclusion that Licensing Panel reforms in hearing management continue to bring a high degree of efficiency and expertise to the Commission's complex, multi-party litigation. Projections of caseload and staf f resource needs in the Five-Year Plan sent the Commission in March, 1985 were essentially confirmed by actual experience in FY 1986.

I ES-3 1 a

I. INTRODUCTION The Office of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel is comprised of Administrative Law Judges and legal and technical. Administrative Judges who sit alone and in three member boards to hear and decide a broad variety of cases. Technical Judges are assigned, whenever possible, to cases in which their professional exp'ertise will assist the

~

board in resolving the particular types of issues to be litigated. Generally, boards consist of a lawyer chairman, a nuclear engineer or reactor physicist, and an environmental scientist.

The Atomic Energy A:t of 1954-requires that a public hearing be held on every application for a construction permit for a nuclear power plant or related facility. 42 9.S.C. 2239, 2241 (1985). The Act and implementing regulations may also require adjudicatory hearings in 14 other types of proceedings: (1) antitrust; (2) civil censity; (3) decommissioning; (4) enforcement; (5) high level waste; (6) low level waste; (7) license amendment; (8) manufacturing permit; (9) materials license; (10) operating license; (11) operator's license; (12) remand; (13) spent fuel pool and transshipment; and (14) special proceedings.

These hearings are the Commission's principal public forum for resolving health and safety concerns. The public, individuals, organizations and state and local governments participate in particular licensing or enforcement matters adjudicated by an independent tribunal. The decisions of the Licensing Panel become the final decision of the agency in virtuully all cases.

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

(1) health, safety, and the common defense and security aspects of the application, as required by the Atomic Energy Act; (2) environmental considerations as required by the National Environmenta: Policy Act (NFPA);'and (3) emergency planning requirements. These matters, as well as especially complex technical issues, were treated by boaros in 58 proceedings during Fiscal Year 1986.

II. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY: HEARING EFFf'CIENCIES A. Fiscal Year 1986 Caseload Overview During the fiscal year ended September 30, 1986, Licensing Boards heard issues concerning nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities with a construction value well in excess of $61 billion. Some 41 percent of all proceedings were completed. Three member Licensing Boards held 172 days of hearings (111 days of trial and 61 days of prehearing conferences). Closed proceedings included three operating license cases, four enforcement proceedings, five

, operating license amendments, one materials license, and four special proceedings. The operation of five nuclear power plant units was authorized '(Limerick 1 and 2, Shearon Harris 1, South Texas 1 and 2). For the first time in six years more new cases were filed (26) than were closed (24).

In the last six years, the Panel has completed a total of 138 of the most difficult and complex proceedings in administrative litigation. Sixteen operating license proceedings addressing 17 units remained to be completed at the end of the fiscal year.

More than twice as many new cases were opened in fiscal year 1986 as in the preceding fiscal year. The increase in new cases filed reflects a shift toward more numerous, less protracted cases of greater diversity. This trend is expected to continue over the next five years.

Fiscal year 1986 saw an expansion in the use of informal proceedings presided over by a single judge in materiais licensing cases. Five such proceedings were conducted last year: one was completed and four were pending on September 30. The Panel established a policy in these cases of assigning an administrative judge as advisor to the presiding officer to supplement either legal.or technical expertise as needed. The Panel judges who have participated in these informal hearings have, by sharing their experiences, developed efficient methods for conducting what was initially a poorly defined type of adjudication. They have also contributed to 0GC's effort to draft informal hearing rules, encouraging a combination of simplicity and thoroughness.

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

hearings on DOE's application to construct a Monitored Retrievable Storage facility and a High Level Nuclear Waste Repository. A score of well-funded intervening parties are prepared to participate in the High level Waste Repository case, currently estimated to involve more than 16 million documents. The Panel's efforts to expand its ability to

utilize sophisticated computer systems for document and hearing management will be essential to Licensing Board responsibility in this massive proceeding.

B. Public Health and Safety

1. Operating Licenses On April 28, 1986, the Licensing Board in Shearon Harris issued a final decision resolving two remainino contentions in favor of the applicant and authorizing the issuance of fuel loading and operating licenses. The Board found that alleged drug use by workers at the plant had not been widespread, and that there was no evidence that drug use had resulted in any specific deficiency in work at the plant or in any other significant safety concern. The Board also considered the issue of notification of area residents in the event of an emergency, in light of the Commission's requirement of "essentially 100%" notification. It found that a combination of sirens and tone-alert radios would result in notification of 90 percent of the residents within five miles of the plant within 15 minutes, and that the addition of mobile alerting would raise the coverage to essentially 100 percent within 45 minutes. (Judges Kelley, Carpenter, Bright and Foreman.)

In the Limerick proceeding, the Licensing Board on September 5, 1986, resolved in favor of the applicant a remanded issue concerning reasonable assurance of the availability of an adequate number of bus drivers to evacuate students in the event of a radiological emergency.

(Judges Hoyt, Harbour and Cole.)

On August 29, 1986, the Licensing Board in South Texas '

issued a third and final Partial Initial Decision which resolved all remaining issues. The Board granted summary

  • disposition of an issue concerning the design of safety structures to withstand hurricane-generated missiles. The Board found that the probability of damage to portions of three safety structures which had not been designed to withstand such missiles was so low that the structures did  !

not need to be redesigned to withstand such missiles. The l Board also dismissed another issue and completed its review l of uncontested questions, accepting the applicants' proposal l to modify their emergency plan as an adequate basis for finding emergency notification satisfactory. The Board authorized licenses for fuel loading, low power operations l

1

and full-power operations. This case was completed fully 10 months ahead of schedule. (Judges Bechhoefer, Lamb and Shon.)

2. Show Cause.

On June 19, 1986, the Licensing Board in Kress Creek I dismissed a March 2,1984 NRC Staff Order to Show Cause that would have required Kerr-McGee Chea1 cal Corporation to clean

)

up thorium that allegedly had escaped from the company's  :

West Chicago Rare Earths facility' prior to the closing of I that facility in 1973. Staff relied on the Environmental Protection Agency's "radium-in-soil" standard which was adopted pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings and Radiation Control Act of 1978, but conceded that this standard could not be retroactively applied and thus could be viewed only as guidance.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the board concluded that the "radium-in-soil" standard was not appropriate  ;

guidance in the context of the hazard posed by Kress Creek, ,

that the dose limitation standards contained in Part 20 were l both legally applicable and appropriate, and that the record  !

did not show that the Part 20 standards were violated. The Board rejected the "radium-in-soil" standard because the hazard regulated by that standard--radon and thoron l emissions--does not create a threat to health in the context of Kress Creek. (Judges Frye, Carpenter and Kline.)

3. Civil Penalty in Reich Geo-Physical, the presiding administrative law judge imposed a civil penalty of $1,600 on the licensee, finding that it was proper for the NRC staff to have treated a number:of related violations as constituting, in the aggregate, a more serious Severity Level II violation. In light of the licensee's financial circumstances, the judge also granted its request to pay the penalty in installments.

(Judge Ivan Smith)

4. Special Proceedings On May 2, 1986, an ad hoc review group presented a major report on the loss of feedwater at Davis-Besse and the t ,

NRC's response to that incident. The five-member group e:tablished by the Commission included two Panel judges, Janes P. Gleason and Peter A. Morris. Judge Gleason served

, as Chairman.

The Commission identified four areas for examination:

, (1) pre-event interactions between the licensee and the NRC concerning the reliability of the auxiliary feedwater system and associated systems, (2) pre-event probabilistic assessments of the reliability of plant safety systems, NRC's review of them, and their use in regu'ttory decision-making; (3) licensee mana~gement, operation and maintenance programs, as they may have c ntributed to equipment failures, and NRC oversight of sJch programs; and (4) the mandate, the capabilities of the members, the operation, and the results of the NRC Davis-Cesse Incident Investigation Team (IIT), and the use to which its report was put by the regulatory staff.

In fulfilling its chcrter, the Group interviewed, or the record, over 50 individuals from deadquarters and Regional staff, Toledo Edison (the licencee for Davis-Besse), Cabcock & Wilcox (maker of the reactor), the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, and management officials from Commonwealth Edison, Duke Power, Florida Power and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. It 1

also interviewed the Davis-Besse Incident Investigation Team and the leaders of the San Onofre and Sacramento IITs.

The Group found that the staff's Incident Investigation Program in general and the performance of the Davis-Besse IIT in particular were adequate. Recommendations for improvements included changes already being implemented by the staff. The Group also found, however, that Toledo Edison and NRC staff actions prior to the incident were not adequate to prevent the incident. The Group recommended improving communications between the staff and licensees, improving communications among the various staff organizational units (particularly NRR and I&E), and encouraging prompt NRC decision-making in the resolution of plant-specific problems, even though that may be under generic consideration. It also endorsed the Commission's 1986 Policy and Planning Guidance directives to conduct a comprehensive review of NRC regulations and to seek a reduction in the number and prescriptiveness of both regulations and Technical Specifications.

C. Hearing Efficiencies

. Within the context of the Conimission's Rules of Practice and general requirements of. fairness, Licensing Boards are frequently called upon to adapt procedures to the

. peculiar needs of specific cases in order to achieve efficiency and economy. The following are a few examples of such procedural innovations during Fiscal Year 1986.

In Seabrook, the Licensing Board sanctioned nine cities dnd towns by barring them f rom presenting certain testimony or cross-examining cer.tain witnesses because of their repeated f ailure to respond to Applicants' discovery l requests. Previous warnings and board-imposed deadlines had

edd no effect on the intransigent towns. (Judges Hoyt, Ha rbour, and Luebke.)

In Comanche Peak a second Board was established to hear a discrete set of issues involving the intimidation of QA inspectors. The two boards subsequently found the intimidation questions so intertwined with existing issues in the primary proceeding that they could not readily be separated. In order to avoid duplicate efforts, the proceedings were consolidated, and the second board was abolished . (Judges Bloch, Grossman, Jordan, McCollom.)

In the THI-1 operating license amendment proceeding involving steam generator plugging criteria, the Board issued its ruling on contentions orally following a special prehearing conference called pursuant to Section 2.751a of the Rules of Practice. This technique, which was employed by several boards during the year, gave the parties an opportunity to begin discovery and preparation for testimony while the Board was drafting an order detailing the basis for its rulings. (Judges Wolfe, Paris, Shon.)

In Parks Township, the presiding administrative judge was presented with the novel question of how late-filed intervention petitions should be treated in a proceeding that was intended to be informal. He concluded that although this materials licensing' proceeding was not in-tended to be run rigidly in accordance with the requirements for Subpart G hearings, nevertheless standards set forth in 10 CFL Section 2.714(a)(1) were the most reasonable available and should be applied. (Judge Paris.)

In the Davis-Besse proceeding involving a low-level waste repository, the presiding administrative judge, who f

was a legal member of the Panel, obtained the assistance of a technical member to define specific scientific and engineering issues for hearing. After a review of the license amendment _ application and the complaints of the intervenors, Judge Jerry Kline drafted a score of questions and Judge Helen Hoyt, presiding, ordered the parties to

, address those issues only. This technique permitted a highly focused, expeditious hearing that produced exactly the information needed for a ruling on the amendment request. (Judge Hoyt.)

Some five proceedings were reconstituted during the year to avoid delay resultant from individual board member's schedule conflicts with other cases. In addition, multiple boards were established in three cases to expedite cases by permitting discrete issues to be addressed simultaneously.

III. ORGANIZATION AND PERSONNEL A. Administrative Judges As cases have become more intensely and. actively litigated'and the issues to be decided have grown increasingly complex, effective management of'the logistics of the hearing process has becorne especially important.

During 1986, some 33 Administrative Judges, sitting alone and in three member Boards successfully completed 41 percent of the cases on the docket.

During FY 1986, the Panel had a total of 48 Adminis-trative Judges (21 full-time and 27 part-time). By I profession the judges included 17 lawyers, 15 environmental scientists, seven engineers, five physicists, one medical  !

doctor, one geologist, one economist and one chemist. See l Appendix B. The judges were appointed to the Licensing l

Panel by the Commission based upon recognized experience, '

achievement and independence in the appointee's field.

Collectively, they held 89 graduate degrees, including 25 Ph.D's. Several part-time members are or have been heads of departments at major universities.

Unfortunately, the Panel lost one full-time member and three part-time members during the year. Judge Lawrence Brenner resigned to take a position as an Administrative Law Judge at the Department of Labor. Part-time members Senior Administrative Law Judge Andrew Goodhope and Dr. Frederick l P. Cowan retired, and Dr. Paul W. Purdom died in May, 1986.

I I

l A cause of some concern is the 21% reduction in Panel personnel effective October 1, 1986, and the prospect of an additional 21%. reduction in personnel due October 1, 1987.

' The Panel's authorized staffing has been cut drastically f rom 52 on October 1,1984 to 30 on October 1,1987, a total reduction of 42%.

The Panel's total number of judges has been reduced from a high of 68 in 1982 to 44 at the end of FY 1986 (21 full-time and 23 part-time). As noted, we expect further significant losses in FY 1987, including up to 25 percent of the full-time judges. The Panel's~ historical strength, a large corps of senior, experienced administrative judges )

with expertise in multiple disciplines appears to be waning. ,

8. Professional Activities l l

Throughout the fiscal year, members of the Panel i participated in professional seminars, conferences and educational programs to stay current in their fields and to share their knowledge and e.xperience with their legal, scientific and engineering colleagues. In order to maximize l the benefits from such programs, attendees report on the proceedings at regular Panel meetings and distribute copies of papers and other literature to interested Panel members.

In addition, in an effort to share the specialized expertise of Panel members more fully, the Panel began a series of "in-house" seminars for full-time members. Among the topics covered were: new rules on the use of hi uranium in' research reactors (Judge Shon)ghly enriched

review of Part 60 (Judge. Cole); source terms'(Judge Linenber status of leak before break (Judge Bright)ger);
and the the current new Part 20 proposal (Judge Kline).

In August 1986, Judge Cotter completed a three-year term on the Executive Committee of the ABA National Conference of Administrative Law Judges and was appointed Chairman of the ABA Judicial Administration Division Membership Committee. The Division includes some' 6,000 judges from every state, Federal and administrative jurisdiction.

In October 1985, Judge Cotter was awarded a certificate for service with distinction by the Netional Judicial College, sponsored by the American Bar Association, in recognition of his role as Faculty Coordinator of the l

College's Managing Complex Litigation course, a course he I conceived and designed. Judges from 611 across the country, including several Panel members, have taken the course.

Judge Cotter also spoke at the annual ALI-ABA seminar "Atomic Licensing and Regulation" and~ organized a seminar for the Federal Bar Association on "High Tech Problems and Opportunities in Litigation." He attended the mid-year and, together with Judges Bechhoefer, Brenner and Margulies, the annual meetings of the ABA.  !

Immediately prior to beginning a nine-munth Congressional Fellowship, Judge Brenner made a presentation to the Department of Justice's seminar on the Federal regulatory process. His topic was practical advice for government attorneys preparing for an administrative adjudicatory proceeding. Judge Margulies served on the Executive Committee of the Federal Administrative Law Judges .

Conference.  !

1 Judge Lazo attended the meeting of the American Nuclear  !

Society in November 1985. Judge Morris attended an i international topical meeting on Thermal Reactor Safety in l February, 1986, and he and Judge Linenberger attended a joint ASME/ANS Nuclear Power Conference in July. Judge Paris participated in the Water Reactor Safety Conference in  ;

October. Several of the legal members of the Panel attended i the lith Annual Symposium of the ABA Judicial Administration  !

Division National Conference of Administrative Law Ndges. l l

In addition, virtually all of the Panel's judges l completed ITS training in basic computer literacy and various software such as dBASE, Displaywrite 3, and ZylNDEX in preparation for expanded use of electronic document i storage and retrieval in the management of Commission cases. '

C. Professional and Support Staff Historically, Licensing Boards were supported in the hearing effort by one part-time and 22 full-time employees, divided into three areas: (1) legal support; (2) technical support; and (3) administration and computer support.

During FY 1986, the law clerk component of the Panel's legal support was terminated because of budget cuts.

_g.

1. Legal and Technical Staff Technical support had been furnished in the past by a reactor safety engineer and a health scientist, but both positions were vacated in 1984 and have not been filled

, because of personnel ceiling limitations.

Legal support was furnished in FY 1986 by the Panel's Chief Counsel and the law clerks he supervised. They furnished advice, legal research, and other assistance to Boards in individual cases (particularly impacted cases) and  :

the Chief Administrative Judge on a broad range of legal matters. The law clerk program, established in 1981, had proven a vital asset to the efficie'.'t and expeditious l

completion of the most difficult cases. The law clerks, all '

of whom were practicing attorneys from the NRC Honor Law Graduate Program, had assisted administrative judges in conducting hearings by performing legal research and draf ting memoranda and orders for the Boards, and furnishing  !

a variety of other legal services. Law clerks were >

appointed to two-year terms and then moved on to permanent positions in or outside of the Commission. In 1986, the last two. law clerks completed their terms and accepted positions.as staff attorneys in the, Environmental Protection Agency and with a private law firm.

2. Administrative Staff Administra tive support is furnished under the direction of the Direct'or and' Assistant Director of the Program Support and Analysis Staff. They provide all analyses and support for office matters such as budget, personnel, support of part-time Panel members, labor relations, travel, space and facilities at headquarters and in hearings around the country, training, F0IA, license fee data, security, and contracts. These two officers have primary responsibility l

for the NRC's court reporting contract used in all office proceedings except the Commissioners.

The Panel is now the only major Administrative Procedure Act hearing activity in the Federal Government that has no law clerks.

The Chief of the Information Processing Section reports to the Director and Assistant Director. That section is responsible for developing and implementing computerized systems to support both Panel administration and individual proceedings. ADP, paralegal work, stenographic, court reporting contract, and field services support are carried

, out by a small staff of paralegals, legal secretaries, and information specialists.

Two of the Panel's staff served on NRC Committees.

Nancy L. Merkel served as Secretary of the NRC Committee on Age Discrimination, and Elva W. Leins was a member of the NRC's Federal Women's Program.

A restatement of the Panel Staff's organization and l titles to reflect current operations and structure was l approved during the year. See Appendix C. j i

IV. IMPROVEMENTS IN HEARING ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT l A. General Administrative support for the boards and the Panel has been automated. Systems and equipment include IBM Personal i Computers and word processors, the LEXIS automated legal '

research system, and a computerized travel and timekeeping system. An internal computerized Hearing Status Report now has a virtually complete data base and is capable of generating valuable case management information. See, f '.o example, Tables 1-10.

A major effort was initiated during the year to transfer all ASLBP computer work from the NIH mainframe to the Panel's personal computers. The conversion will have two principal benefits: (1) elimination of almost $10,000 per year in storage and use charges; and (2) increased flexibility, speed, and usefulness of reports created through in-house programming and production. The Panel will be able to consolidate and revise dhta bases to obtain more accurate evaluations and analyses of operations and management. The conversion should be completed mid-way through FY 1987.

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

Computerization of the Indian Point hearing transcript in

  • 1983 proved that substantial time and labor could be saved in decision writing by computerizing and indexing the full text of the transcript. In place at the outset of a large case, a computerized system would permit, as needed, electronic filing, computerized transcripts, prefiled testimony, and proposed findings-of fact and conclusions of law for enormously expedited record searches, shortened hearings, and faster and more complete decision making. By using resources for the most part already in place, the cost benefit ratio for large cases should be substantial.

The Panel's system will network each judge's personal computer to a COMPAQ 386 with a 130 megabyte hard disk. The Compaq uses the new Intel 80386 chip and thus is much faster than the Panel's IBM PC XTs. The Compaq can perform 5 minicomputer functions by acting as a "file server". The Panel is presently computerizing transcripts of protracted proceedings in full text. The transcripts are fully indexed using both Bluefish and ZyINDEX sof tware. The Panel was

. designated a BETA test site by both software companies.

ZyINDEX can be used on IBM PC XTs to index records up to 3,000 pages. However, the IBM PC, even supplemented by a Bernoulli Box, does not have the capacity to handle a 22,000 page transcript--but the Compaq does. Thus for large transcript searches, the PC can be used as a dumb terminal to the Compaq with the faster, larger, Bluefish indexing p rog ram. In addition, each judge's PC will be equipped with a modem and Crosstalk sof tware to receive and send electronic filings in those instances when time is of the essence.

The Panel is gradually exploring the myriad steps necessary to resolve the problem of incompatible computer equipment in electronic filing. An important consideration in electronic filing is to establish the least labor intensive system. Very preliminary talks were held 'with the Loc.1 Public Document Room Branch and Resource Management to determine if electronic access and filing can be established in the LPDRs at minimum cost. In the interim, the Panel will obtain an optical character reader to capture electronically the filings of those parties to its proceedings who lack computer capability.

l 1

l C. Court Reporting Contract During FY 1986, the Licensing Panel managed the Commission's court reporting contract for all in-town and  !

out-of-town proceedings except those of the Commission '

itself. The Panel furnishes such services to all other Commission offices. The Panel is continuing to analyze the contract for additional cost savings and improved service, and will revise the contract in 1987 to bring it up to date.

We are particularly interested in developments that would expedite not only the hearing process, but all Commission operations, through electronic filings. We anticipate that computer capture of all types of NRC proceedings, j adjudicatory and non-adjudicatory, will become the norm. 1 i

l Y. CONCLUSION l

i The Licensing Panel enjoyed a record year in a number of respects. More cases were closed than in any year since 1982, and more new cases were filed than in any year since 1979. Average time for all cases on the docket declined substantially, and strong pretria'l management resolved a remarkable 85% of all issues in cases closed without the need for a full blown hearing. Those accomplishments redound to the credit of a senior, experienced body of administrative judges, legal and technical, and their support staff.

At the same time the judicial workforce began to shrink significantly. Younger judges began to transfer to other agencies and older judges began to contemplate retirement.

The Panel has not hired a new judge in five years. The resource is unique; several years are required for a new judge to master the complex litigation encountered in Licensing Board proceedings. Some thought should be given to preserving the Licensing Panel resource both for current work and for future litigation like the massive Monitored Retrievable Storage and High Level Waste Repository proceedings.

Respectfully submitted.

((

B. . Paul Cotter, J Chief Administrative Judge APPENDIX A ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL I. SELECTED STATISTICS: FISCAL YEAR 1986 The 58 proceedings conducted this fiscal year included 16 operating license (0L) proceedings involving 14 units valued in excess of $54 billion.- Licensing Boards &lso conducted 42 other proceedings, completing 41% of all cases on the docket.

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

A. FY 1986 ACTIVITY:

1. Cases Pending October 1, 1985 32
2. Cases Docketed During FY 1986 (including remands and multiple boards) +26
3. Total Cases 38
4. Cases Closed During FY 1986 -24 l S. Cases Pending October 1, 1986 34 B. CASES ON THE DOCXET:

Fiscal Year 1986 58 Fiscal Year 1985 55 Fiscal Year 1984 63 Fiscal Year 1983 64 i Fiscal Year 1982 76 A-1

C. TOTAL NEW CASES CLOSED BY THE PANEL:

1. Since October 1, 1972:

Docketed 419* -

Pending 34 Closed 3ET

  • Includes 93 proceedings on petitions for hearing.
2. Since November 9,~1962 (date first part time Board was appointed):

Docketed 501*

Pending 34

_ Closed 4T7

  • Includes 93 proceedings on petitions for hearing.

D. FY 1986 DOCKET ANALYSIS:

1. Types of new cases filed:
a. Operating licenses 0
b. Operating license amendments 8 (Includes spent fuel pool and transshipment cases) c.

Construction permits 0

d. Civil penalty 3
e. Special proceedings 4
f. Antitrust 0
g. Other proceedings 4
h. Remands (operating licenses) 7 1

76

2. Types of cases closed:
a. Operating licenses 3
b. Operating license a9endments 9
c. Construction permits 0
d. Civil penalty and enforcement 4
e. Special proceedings 4
f. Antitrust 0
g. Other proceedings 4 d

T4 A-2 1

3. Types of cases pending October 1: '8~5 '86
a. Operating licenses
  • 11 16 -

, b. Operating license amendments 6 5

c. Construction permits 2 3
d. Spent fuel pool & transshipment 1 2

. d. Special proceedings 5 5

e. Antitrust 0 0
f. Other proceedings 7 3 77 74
  • Includes multiple boards'.

DOCKET REDUCTION. In the last six fiscal years, Licensing Boards have closed 138 cases, 40 more than the 98 new cases filed. However, last year was the first time since 1981 that the number oi new cases filed exceeded the number of cases closed.

FY 1987 PROSPECTS. We expect 55 cases on the docket in FY 1987. Of the 34 cases pending October 1, 1986, seven cases were temporarily suspended. Several will be activated during FY 1987. Licensing Boards anticipate that during '

FY 1987 they will complete 22 cases, including at least 6 operating license proceedings affecting 12 nuclear power plant units. We expect 22 new cases to be docketed during i Fiscal Year 1987. .

NOTE: Last year we underestimated the number of new cases ,

that would be filed by 44%. The ELD projection was even lower.

III. OPERATING LICENSES NEW UNITS. From May 1981 to September 30, 1986, Licensing Boards have authorized full power operating  :

licenses for thirty-seven (37) new units by closing 30 proceedings, 18 by Initial Decisions. These units include Beaver Valley 2,. Byron 1 and 2, Callaway 1, Catawba 1 and 2, Clinton 1 and 2, Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Enrico Fermi 2, Grand Gulf I and 2, Hope Creek, Indian Point 3, Limerick 1 and 2, McGuire 1 and 2, Nine Mile Point 2, Palo Verde 1, 2, and 3, Perry 1 and 2, River Bend 1, San Onofre 1 and 2, St.

Lucie 2. Shearon Harris 1, South Texas 1 and 2, Summer 1.

Susquehanna 1 and 2, Waterford 3, and Wolf Creek 1.

A-3

l I

I l

IV. CONTENTIONS The data concerning disposition of contentions in Tables 1-10, attached, show that: (1) the expeditious resolution of contentions continues tu improve; (2) case management, discovery, and prehearing procedures are effective in achieving their intended purpose of reducing and focusing issues for hearing; and (3) a large portion of the Licensing Boards' work takes place in the prehearing phase. To illustrate, contentions resolved prior to hearing in all operating license proceedings on the docket during l FY 1986 total 777 cut of 840 or 92%. (Table 1)

Generally, the largest number of contentions eliminated i prior to hearing during FY 1986 resulted f rom Licensing Board rejection at the outset pursuant to the rules, e.g.,

42% in operating license cases. Morcover, the large  ;

majority of all contentions initially admitted in all proceedings completed during FY 1986 were subsequently i resolved prior to hearing through processes such as j stipulation, consolidation, withdrawal, agreement among the parties following negotiations, or summary disposition.

Licensing Boards actively and continuously encouraged and facilitated informal, negotiated resolution of issues.

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

at hearing may in fact be e m:idering many It should also be noted that <.ontent'9ns data in Tables 1 to 10 are approximate because u nteations are of ten reformulated or broken down into multiple contentions. The margin of error is about two percent.  ;

l The data on resolution of contentions confirm the Licensing Boards' active implementation of the procedural devices and guidance contained in the Commission's May 1981 ,

I "Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings",

13 NRC 452 (1981). The Boards expect this trend to continue in FY 1987.

V. HEARINGS The average number of days of hearings for those cases where the record was closed during the fiscal year was only A-4 l 1

^

14 days of hearing and four days of prehearing. Both totals.

are lower than last year.

OLs. Hearing time for three operating license proceedings in which the record was closed during FY 1986 required an average, cumulative total of 49 hearing days and 17 prehearing days per case, for a total of 66 hearing days (three other proceedings involved single remanded issues and took substantially less time to complete). That number is relatively low (considering the age of these proceedings) ,

dnd reflects the parties' cooperation with Licensing Boards' '

efforts to improve hearing management and thus resolve more contentions prior to hearing.

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

VI. AGE OF CASES The average age (length of time considered by a Board) of all cases on the docket during the Fiscal Year was 27  :

months, down sharply from the 38 month average in the prior year. "Average age" means the number of months from the time a Licensing Board is first appointed (usually 30 to 60 days af ter 'a license application is formally docketed) until the case is closed or the end of the fiscal year, whichever -

is earlier. Average age includes waiting time resulting from suspension of work or unavailability of hearing l documents (except where cases are suspended, for example, i Carroll 1 & 2). "Average age" does not include the time a l case may be pending before the Appeal Board or the Commission. ,

. Average age by type for all cases on the docket during  !

FY 1986-was: )

Type of Case Months

1. Operating license applications (including remands) (16) 32
2. Operating license amendments (13) 20
3. Construction permit amendments (2) 6
4. Special proceedings (12) 14 A-5 l

4 c

5. Spent Fuel Pool & Transshipment (2) 20
6. Other proceedings (6) 22
7. Suspended (7) 62 DOCKET AVERAGE (58 Cases),

27 The average was inflated by the presence of a handful of operating license proceedings plagued by problems that delayed resolution of hearing issues or created new ones late in the proceeding.

1 1

A-6 i

APPENDIX B ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL Fiscal Year 1986 I. PANEL MEMBERS A. Officers CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, B. PAUL COTTER, JR., Attorney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE -- EXECUTIVE, ROBERT M. LAZ0, Otorney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE -- TECHNICAL, FREDERICK J. SH0N, Physicist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD CilIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, IVAN W. SMITH, Attorney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD B. Full-Time Administrative Judges

1. Legal  !

JUDGE CHARLES BECHH0EFER, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE PETER B. BLOCH, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE LAWRENCE BRENNER, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD (Resigned September 13,1986)

JUDGE JOHN H FRYE, III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE HERBERT GROSSMAN, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE HELEN F. H0YT, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Bethesda, MD '

JUDGE JAMES L. KELLEY, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD B-1

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

. JUDGE SHELD0N J. WOLFE, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD

2. Technical JUDGE GLENN 0. BRIGHT, Engineer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD i

' JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER, Environmental Scientist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, Environmental Scientist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, Geologist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE JERRY R. KLINE, Environmental Scientist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER, Physicist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE EMMETH A. LUEBKE, Physicist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD ,

1 JUDGE PETER A. MORRIS, Physicist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Bethesda, MD l

l JUDGE OSCAR H. PARIS, Environmental Scientist, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Comission, Bethesda, MD

)

i C. Part-Time Administrative Judges

1. Legal JUDGE HUGH K. CLARK, Retired Attorney, E.I. duPont dcNemours & Company, i Kennedyville, MD JUDGE JAMES P. GLEASON, Attorney, Silver Spring, MD B-2 1

6

  • I JUDGE ANDREW C. GOODHUPE, Senior Administrative Law Judge, Federal Trade Commission, Wheaton, MD (Retired May 2, 1986)

. JUDGE GARY L. MILHOLLIN, Professor, University of Wisconsin School of Law, Madison, WI JUDGE MARSHALL E.11 ILLER, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission, Bethesda, MD JUDGE SEYMOUR WENNER, Retired Administrative Law Judge, Postal Rate Comission, Chevy Chase, MD

2. Technical JUDGE GEORGE C. ANDERSON, Marine Biologist, University of Washington, Seattle, WA JUDGE A. DIXON CALLIHAN, Retired Physicist, Union Carbide Corporation, Oak Ridge, TN JUDGE FREDERICK P. C0WAN, Retired Physicist, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Boca Raton, FL (Retired June 30,1986)

JUDGE MICHAEL A. DUGGAN, Economist, University of Texas, Austin, TX JUDGE GEORGE A. FERGUSON, Physicist, Howard University, Washington, DC JUDGE HARRY FOREMAN, Medical Doctor, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN '

JUDGE RICHARD F. F0 STER, Environmental Scientist, Sunriver, OR JUDGE CADET H. HAND, JR. , Marine Biologist, University of California, Bodega Bay, CA JUDGE DAVID L. HETRICK, Nuclear Engineer, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ JUDGE ERNEST E. HILL, Nuclear Engineer, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, CA J'J DGE FRANK F. HOOPER,-Marine Biologist, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI B-3

JUDGE ELIZABETH B. JOHNSON, Nuclear Engineer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN

, JUDGE WALTER H. J0RDAN, Retired Physicist, Oak Ridge Laboratories, Oak Ridge, TN

. JUDGE JAMES C. LAMB, III, Sanitary Engineer, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC JUDGE LINDA W. LITTLE, Environmental Biologist, L. W. Little Associates, i Raleigh, NC JUDGE KENNETH A. MCCOLLOM, E!actrical Engineer, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK JUDGE PAUL W. PURDON, Retired Environmental Engineer, Decatur, GA (Deceased, May 5, 1986)

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

~

JUDGE QUENTIN J. ST0BER, Biologist, University of Washington, Seattle.

WA (Resigned October 27,1986)

II. Professional Staff A. Legal Counsel DAVID L. PRESTEMON, Director and Chief Counsel, Legal and Technical Support Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Cethesda, MD Law Clerks DONNA D. DUER, Attorney, U.S. Nuclear Regu?atory Comission, Bethesda, MD (ResignedJune 13.1986)

ELLEN C. GINSBURG, Attorney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Bethesda, MD (ResignedJune 17,1986)

B-4 i

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

III. ADNINISTRATIVE OFFICERS CHARLES J. FITTI, Dir vu , Program Support Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, MD

, ELVA W. LEINS. Assistant Director, Program Support Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Bethesda, MD JACK G. WHETSTINE, Chief, Information Processing Section (Computer i Programs), U.S. Nu, clear Regulatory Commission, Bethesda, MD 1

i 1 ,

, l 4

i I

4 G

1 1

l l 1  ;

1 1

I 1

i i

bb n

, - - ,- w w rw-

_y- - - - --e n ,-- , ,

g,,--- - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - . , - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - -

o k

\ t s\ s%a%3',si A' $

g

\y\

\ u%gu \

5 es s c. ,

g g

\'\ ' %I(k'i'#

h \k

,s\s th g Ngsg'g g

\

s 1 A-

\ v i '

o $*

9 @. $ '.s,\

s

\

,,9 \$,ga Mp'i$ tX g o

v '

mbvs & ;g %,

.s A &

,3

%w\\\

'w'JM's g , g g

t

\ s

\,@ ',k, y%N e

e., -

h \K, \

m y

k i

\

e QVge,\x g

v T. go a\, sw_ 1\ss s

k\i '

e\

s ,

3

,4

'k \$

r, k,

\ s

~

'd

h P (

? ll u

b 3

~ "

l b

I

!i C-1

OCTOBEQ 1. 1586 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL PAGE: 1 0F 1 FISCAL YEAR 1986 DOCKET DATA J_A_B1E t r OPERATING LICENSES DISPOSITION OF CONTENTIONS DAYS OF HEARING 70 DATE TOIAL MON!'

RESOLVED BALANCE PRE N.

DOCKET ASLBP ASLBP WITH- STIP./ SUt1M ADMIT BY BLFORE FOR HEAR- HEAR- TOTAL ACTIVE IMME OF CASE DATE FILED DENIEQ ADn1T PRf;1N OTHER. DISP .ASLAP HEARItJG rifA8JNG ING_ ING TO DATE DOCKET, kRAID6800D 1 &2 01/23/79 15 3 11 7 1 1 0 13 2 3 95 98 66

-COMANCHE PEAK 1 &2 08/09/79 28 1 28 11 1 15 0 27 1 29 62 91 86 HARRIS 1 ,02/23/82 323 129 ^? .04 18 15 0 308 15 15 46 61 50 LIMERICK REMAND 819 10/22/85 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 LIMERICK REMAhls 8,6 05/07/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 4 LIMERICK REMAND-845 08/26/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 SEABROOK 1 & 2 0FFSITE 11/30/8' 137 80 49 7 1 0 0 137 0 6 11 17 58 SEABROOK 1 & 2 DNSITE 09/19/85 205 71 51 5 16 8 0 181 24 6 0 6 11 5HOIEHAM EP EXERCISE 06/10/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 4 SHORENAM EP REMAND-832 03/26/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 SH02EHAM EP REMAND-847 09/19/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 SHD2EHAM EP REMAND CLI 09/25/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 to 0 0 0 0 0 1 SOUTH TEXAS 1 & 2- 09/08/7A 73 38 27 1 4 1 0 52 21 11 87 98 96 V0GTLE ELEC. PLANT 182 01/31/84 39 16 21 2 11 13 0 36 ,3 1 6 7 32

_ RASHI14GTON NUCLEAR 1 09/16/82 20 4 14 2 0 0 0 20 0 2 0 2 48 TOTALS: 840 342 243 -139 52 53 17 777 66 81 310 391 467 AVERAGEt 56 23 16 9 3 3 1 51 4 5 20 26 31

~.

PERCEPTS ~00% 41.7% 28.6% 16.5% 6.1% 6.3% 2.02 92.1% 7.8%

.-_- ._._.___-. . . . - _ __m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ - . _ _ ~ ,_m.___ _ . _ _ _ _ . . -- .__ . . . _ _ _ _. . .

c, , .e OCTOBER 1, 1986 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL PAGE: 1 0* 1 FISCAL YEAR 1986 DOCKET DATA IABLE 2r OPERATING AMENDMENTS DISPOSITION OF CONTENTIONS DAYS OF NEARING

'TO DATE

) TUTAL FIUNTN5 l

PESOLVED BALANCE PRE ON DOCKET ASLBP ASL3P WITH- STIP./ SUMM ADMIT BY BEFORE FOR HEAR- HEAR- TOTAL ACTIVE NAME OF CASE DATE fliiD DENIED ADMIT DRAHN OTHER DISP ASLAP HEARING HEARING ING ING TO DATE DOCKET OAv!S BESSE HASTE DISP. 02/25/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 e a 0 0 0 0 7 HUrtBOL DT BAY DECOMM. 0?./07/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 LIMERICK 1 OLAs ',02/12/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 LIMERICK 1 OLA2 03/13/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ]

1 SEOUOYAH HASTE DISPOSAL 02/25/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 IHREE MILE ISLAND 2 v5/15/ 8 0 14 0 0 0 to 0 0 to 4 0 0 0 67 f t151 OLA2 03/ M/86 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 6 it111 STEAM GEN PLUGGING 01/10/86 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 1 9 1

TURKEY POINT 3 3 4 OLA1 11/09/83 18 14 2 0 0 1 0 17 1 8 0 $ 30 TURKEY POINT 3 8 4 OLA3 07/16/34 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 7 0 1 25 UCLA RESEARCH REACTOR 86/10/80 24 4 20 0 0 1 0 5 19 25 15 40 65 ZION 1 &2 02/16/84 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 TOYALSt 70 27 29 0 10 2 0 45 25 46 15 58 .245 a

9 AVERAGE: 6 2 2 0 1 0 0 4 2 4 1 5 20 2

PERCENTe 100% 38.5% 41.4% s.or 14.2% 2.8% 0.02 64.2% 35.7%

t- _ _

11 .

! . - _ - _ - .. -. .. . . _ . -. . - - . - .. . . - . . - - - = - - - .

OCfDBLR 1. 1986 AIOMIC SAf ~.IY At4D LICEt4 SING BOARD PAtaf L l' A G f - 1 Of 1 FISCAL YEAR 1986 DOCKET DATA

1ABLE 3
CONSTRUCTION PERMITS DISPOSITION OF CONTENTIONS DAYS OF HEARING

_ _ _ _ . TD_RAIF TOTAL MONTHS RESOLVED BALANCE PRE ON DOCKET ASL8P ASLBP HITH- STIP./ SUMM ADMIT BY BEFORE FOR HEAR- HEAR- TOTAL ACTIVE MAMf 0F CASE _pATE FILED DENILD ADMIT DRAHtt OTHER DISP _ASLAP HEARING HEARING ING ING R Q&If DOCKET COttANCHE PEAK t & 2 C.'A 03/20/36 0 0 0 0 0- S 0 0 0 0 t i 6 e

+

A 1

6 i

  • t

e . .

OCTOBER 1, 1986 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BDARD PANEL PAGEt 1 0F 1 FISCAL YEAR 1986 DOCKET DATA TABLE 4: SPENT FUEL P'JOL / TRANSHIPMENT i

DISP 0577 ION OF CONTENTIONS DAYS OF HEARING TO DATE iuist MONTHS RESOLVED BALANCE PRE ON DOCKET ASLBP ASLBP WITH- STIP./ SUMM ADMIT BY BEFORE FOR HEAR- HEAR- TOTAL ACTIVE NAME OF CASE _DATE FILID DENIED ADMIT DRAHM OTHER. DISP ASLAP HEARING HEARING ING ING Ig_pfJJ DOCKET DIABLO CANYON RERACK 02/21/86 27 25 7 0 0 0 0 20 7 0 2 2 7 IU2 KEY POINT 3 & 4 OLA2 07/16/84 ?u 3 7 0 0 0 0 3 7 7 0 7 27 1

TOTAL'* 47 28 14 0 0 0 0 23 14 7 3 to 40 i

AVERAGES 19 14 7 0 0 0 8 12 7 4 2 5 20 PERCENT 100% 75.6% 37.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 62.1 x 37.8%

l II

_ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ - - _-- - -, _ . - - - - - - - . i-e---.. .--. . ..----.u-- ,- m- . e

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

e s OCIUSER 1. 1986 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICLHSING BOARD pat 4LL pat t 1 08 1 FISCAL YEAR 1986 DOCKET DATA TABLE 5: SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS E

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTIONS DAYS OF HFASTnG TO DATF TOTAL MONTHS RESOLVED BALANCE PRE ON DOCKET ASLBP ASLBP HITH- STIP./ SUMM ADMIT SY BEFORE FOR t* D R - HEAR- TOTAL ACTIVE t:AME OF CASE DATE FILED DENIED ADMIT DPAHM OTHER DISP ASLAP HEARING HQRING ING ING TO DATE DOCKET COMANCHE PEAK HARASS. 03/30/84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 DAVIS PESSE AD NOC 02/01/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 EMPt'., VEE GRIEVENCE 11/18/85 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8

'9RLEY MEDICAL CENTER 94/08/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 (CES$ CREEK 06/29/84 21 1 8 7 4 0 0 12 _. 9 11 0 11 23 MILLSTONE 3(BURTON) 10/15/85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 SHEFFIELD 06/06/79 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 68 iMI-1 EDMARD WALLACE 08/19/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 TMI el CIV PEN 05/30/86 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 THI-2 LEAK RATE INQUIRY 12/20/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 14 9

  • iMit CH 09/12/85 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 5 13 UCLA LIC. TERMINATION 11/02/84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 TOTALS
  • 27 1 11 7 4 0 0 15 12 26 to 34 172 AVERAGEt 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 14 i I PERCENT 2 100% 3.7x 40.7% 25.9% 14.8% 0.ux 0.0% 55.5% 44.4%

- - - - _ - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ ---_----_ , - - m-- rv - , , _ , _,

e e ,

OCTOBER 1, 1986 AIOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL PAGE: 1 DF 1 FISCAL YEAR 1986 DOCKET DATA TABLE 6 OTHER PROCEEDINGS DISPOSITION OF CONTENTIONS DAYS OF HEARIAG TO DATE I T0iAL MONTHS RESOLVED BALANCE PRE ON DOCKET ASLBP ASLBP WITH- STIP./ SUMM ADMIT BY BEFORE FOR HEAR- HEAR- TOTAL ACTIVE NAME OF CASE _RE!f_ FILED DENIED ADMIT DRAWN OTHER DISP ASLAP HEARING HEARING ING ING TO DATE DOCKET MIDLAND 1 & 2 DM 03/i4/80 16 5 11 4 0 0 0 9 7 4 96 100 67 MINE HILL NJ IRRADIAT9R 08/01/85 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 6 'f N. AMER. CIVIL PENALTY ,10/30/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f- 0 0 1 1 6 Pa:KS TOWNSHIP FACILITY 08/01/85 31 18 14 0 0 0 0 17 14 0 1 1 14 2A%E EARTH FACILITY 11/07/83 38 6 26 2 9 0 0 18 20 4 2 6 35 OEICH GED-PHYSICAL, INC 03/12/85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6 9 SEQUOYAH FACILITY 08/01/85 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 0 2 14 TOTALSs 110 43 51 6 9 0 0 73 45 14 102 116 151 AVERAGE: 16 6 7 1 1 0 0 to 6 2 15 17 22

, PERCENT: 100% 39.0% 46.3% 5.4% 8.12 0.9% 0.0% 66.3% 40.9%

i

~

b 11

o

  • c OCTOBEQ 1, 1986 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEN5ING BOARD PANEL PAGE: 1 0F 1 FISCAL YEAR 1986 DOCKET DATA

)ABLE 72 SU5f_ ENDED CASES DISPOSITION OF CONTENTIONS DAYS OF HEARING TO DATE TOTAL MONTM5 RESOLVED BALANCE PRC ON .

DOCKET ASLBP A5LBP HIlH- STIP./ SUMM ADMIT BY BEFORE FOR HEAR- HEAR- TOTAL ACTIVE tlAML._0. F CASE DATE FILED DENIED ADMIT DRAHM OTHER DISP ASLAP HEARING HEARING ING ING TO DATE DOCKET CARROLL 1 &2 05/01/79 75 53 22 0 0 0 0 75 0 1 0 1 40 GREENE COUNTY 04/21/76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '

, 0 79 HUMB9 TDT BAY 07/2C/77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 58 LACROSSE (RENEWAL) 11/33/77 25 12 6 0 0 6 0 25 s 2 0 2 77 MARBLE HILL 1 &2 04/26/83 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 1 0 1 41 MIDLAND 1 &2 06/06/78 138 52 25 64 2 0 0 116 22 5 9 14 100 HASHINGTON NUCLEAR 3 03/05/83 17 8 9 7 0 0 0 8 9 1 0 1 40 TOTALS: 285 118 62 71 2 6 0 254 31 11 9 20 435 AVERAGE: 41 17 9 to 0 1 0 36 4 2 1 3 62

,, PERCENT 2 1002 41.4% 2f.7% 24.9% 0.7% 2.1% 0.0% 89.1% 10.8%

1 s

~C

t S ET H VE TNIK 3 4 4 0 i 3 2 1 3 4 1 7 3 6 6 NOTC 1 5 S 2 4 6 2 O CO M AD F

0 E LT 1 G AA N TD 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 e 0 1 I O 6 1 0 R TO 1 AF T ET HA L D -

G F RG A O0 AN 0 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 1 l' 7 EI 4 9 S

Y H

e A

- D -

ERG RAN 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 8 0 4 0 0 0 PEI 1 1 e H E G C N NRI 0 0 0 5 0 9 0 0 0 8 0 7 0 0 9

- AOR 1 LFA .

A E

~ B H D

EEG LVRN ALOI 0 0 0 8 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 9 e 5 9 TOFR 0 1 3 2

~ OSEA 3 TEBE R H Y

_ L

_ L B N P

_ P A

A TA IL MS 0 0 0 8 9 0 6 0 1 1 8 0 0 0 9 D T S DA R A N A A D S O O E I ME B T S I ME 9 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 9 0 8 0 0 0 E A N UL

~ 6 G N

K C E SR 1

8 C T 9 I O D N 1 S D E O /. R N S C PE 0 0 0 8 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0

. E 6 O IH 1 1 C 8 L ' TT I 9 C ' SO R L 1 L 2 N - N B D R 8 O HW O N A I TA 0 0 0 4 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 a 0 T A E E T IR 0 C Y L I HD 1

. O Y S S T

E L

A A

I O

P PT BI

_ f C S LM 0 0 0 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 A S I SD 4 1 S I D AA F

~ C s D M PE

.- O BI 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 T LN 2 A SE 1 AD

. D

- E 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 5 C L 2 2 3 1 2 I 3 F

4 6 5 2 7 4 5 6 5 6 3 4 5 5 6 T 8 8 8 3 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 EE / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

KT 0 1 8 3 9 9 2 3 2 7 6 4 5 1 0 CA 3 0 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 3 OD / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

D 3 2 1 2 7 6 2 3 0 5 4 3 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 e 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 R

O Y

. T T S A L S 9 6 ) I A A C E 1 3 N D N R O C 8 8 2 D A E A H N M T R P H E 1 2 D D 4 O R R U

- E S

A C

A D V K A E E E R I 2 Y A K A A N N L L O O M M A A 1 E E L 8 5 N 2 S t

I J V L

I I

. P S G 8 S E 1 1 R R L C F S E I 1 E L

,. O E E E 1 T R K K K K M N L .

. H B E D C C C C C D O I R E C Y S L I I I I E N T H E M N S O I O S R R R R L A S M

~ A A I L R B S E E E E B L L E A

. N t r V P R M E N M M M R D L N a A M A U R I I I 1 A I I I .

- !l .! '

C D,IE Ii H lH IR L  :

L L 11M M M M l M_ ~* i

,I.lIll 1L

gr .

  • OCTOBER t, 1986 _.

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL PAGE: 2 0F 2 FISCAL YEAR 1986 DOCKET DATA TABLE 8: CLOSED CASES (CONT'D)

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTIONS DAYS OF HEARING TO DATE IUIAL MONTHS RESOLVCS BALANCE PRE ON DOCKET ASLBP ASLBP WITH- STIP./ SUMM ADMIT LY BEFORE FOR HEAR- HEAR- TOTAL ACTIVF NAME_OF CASE

_ M ElkfD DENIED Ap_ tilt. DRAWN OTHER DISP .ASLAP HEARING HEARING ING ING TO DATE POCKET REICH GLO-PHYSICAL, INC 03/12/85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6 9

, SOUfH TEXAS 1 &2 09/08/78 73 38 27 1 4 1 0 52 21 11 87 98 96 l

IHREE MILE ISLAND 2 , 05/15/80 14 0 0 0 to 0 0 10 4 9 0 P 67 TMI-1 EDWARD WALLACE 08/19/86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 TURKEY ?OINT 3 & 4 OLAt 11/09/83 18 16 2 0 0 1 0 17 1 8 0 8 30 ,

TURKEY POINT 5 a 4 OLA3 07/16/84 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 7 0 7 25 -

UCLA L1C. TERMINATION 11/02/84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 UCfA RESEARCH REACTOR 06/10/80 24 4 20 0 0 1 0 5 19 25 15 40 65 ZION 1 &2 02/16/84 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 T O Tr.L S : 548 196 11I 116 36 18 2 471 77 86 250 336 618

. AVERAGE 8 23 8 5 5 2 1 0 20 5 3 10 13 25 PERCENT: 100% 35.7* 20.2% 21.2% 6.5% 3.3% 0.5x 85.9% 14.1%

._._m..___. _. _ .m___ _ _ _ _- . _ _ . --_ _ _ - _ . _ = . . . -. _ .

e e s -

c OCTORLR t. 1986 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANLL PAGt 1 08 1 FISCAL YEAR 1986 TABLE 9: CONTENTION TOTALS TOTAL RESOLVED SUt1 MARY BEFORE

, FILED DENIED ADMITTED WITHDRANN STIPULATED DISPOSITION ASLAP HEARING HEARING SAFETY: 654 210 224 159 39 26 5 557 136 ENVIRONMENTAI: 275 130 64 43 4 20 0 260 15 EMERGENCY PLANNINGS 332 123 106 13 8 15 14 304 28 3 OTHER: 108 96 16 8 22 0 0 91 17 TOTAL $s 1569 559 410 223 77 61 19 1187 196 AVERAGE $s 24.1 9.9 7.3 4.0 1.4 1.1 .3 22.2 3.5 PERCENT: 100.0% 41.0% 30.0% 16.6% 5.7% 4.5x .1% 86.3% .1x 1

l i

11 4

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

ir e o

}, .

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL OCf0BLR 1, 1986 PAGE 1 0F 3 ,-

TAPsE 10: SLIPPAGES IN OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS FY 1982 - 1986 DOCKET DATAw I I l ll SAFEIY DOCUf1LMisen ll APPLICANI CON $lRUCIION II ASLB HLARING START 1 1 I lESTIMATEDil NEEDED FOR HEARING ll Cot 1PL ET ION ll (LAST PHASE) l l l CASE I DOCKET l PLANI ll----------------------81------------------------ll----------------------l 1 l DATE I COST l l EARL I F.5T I L AT EST I SL IP llEARLIESTl LATEST I SLIP llEARLIESTILATECTl SLIP l 1 -

l l(BILLION)ll CAtt i DATE lIN MO.ll DATE I DATE IIN MO.ll DATE I DATE lIN PD.1 i I l i is i I 18 1 1 Il i I I  !

I 1. BLAVER VALLLY 2 101-07-831 $3.5 18 09-84 1 04-851 7 ll 12-86 1 04-87 1 4 Il 05-85 101-84 l -15 l [

t (BEAVER VALLEY. PA) l l ll l l ll l l ll l l l I ( DISMISSED 1/27/84) I i ll 1 l Il I l ll 8 l I I I I 11 1 I il i I il i I I r i 2. sRAIDH000 1 s2 101-23-791 5.e5 11 06-s2 I et-s5 30 ll e4-85 1 10-a6 I is il 04-84 110-85 1 1s I I (JOLIET, IL) I i 11 I il i i 11 I I I l I I il 1 -

ll I I Il i I l 1 3. BYRON 1 12 301-23-791 4.65 ll 02-82 l e5-848 2F ll e4-83 i el-85 1 21 ll 87-82 le7-84 I 24 l l (ROCKFORD, IL) i I al i l ll l l ll l l l j i (INIT. DCC. 10/26/s4) l I ll l l ll l l 11- 1 I I

1 I I Il i I il i i 11 I I l I 4. CALLAWAY 1 110-02-801 3.0 li 18-81 1 11-828 13 11 10-82 1 09-84 I 23 11 e4-82 les-83 l 16 I i 1

I (Fution. MO) '

I I il 1 I Il I l ll 1 l t 1' 1 (INIT. DEC. 10/31/s3) i l 18 l ll l 1 Il l I i I I l 11 1 18 1 1 11 1 I I I 5. CATANSt.1 s2 107-28-811 3.9 11 92-82 i e4-s4, 26 Il e8-s3 1 12-84 1 16 11 e4-s3 le5-s4 1 13 I I (ROCE MILL, SC) i 1 11 1 I i l i ll l l l (INIT. DEC. 11/27/s4) l l ll l l l l l ll l l 1 I I II 1 l' I I li i I 4 1 6. CLINTom t lit-e7-sol 4.7 ll e?-s2 I e7-s2l 6 e4-a2 i e2-s6 1 46 ll e2-s3 1e2-s5 1 24 ',

I (CLINTow, IL) 1 I 18 l l t i l ll l '

1 l l (ORDER e2/14/s5) l l ll l I ,1 I i ll l 1 l 8 I I il '1 I il I 8 il l l 1 l 7. CLInfou 2 maa 111-07-sol -

11 - -

I - II 1 - -

II -

1 - I - I <

1 (cLInfon, IL) l 1 fI l il l l' ll l l l 1 (ORaEm e7/11/s5) e i 11 1 18 I l ll l l 1- ,

4 i l I ll l 11 1 I ll l l l l s. CoMANCNE PEAK 1 s2 109-89-791 5.44 ll 86-81 I 98-85' Se il 12-s1 1 12-86 4 de ll 99-81 102-86 1 53 I I (GLEM ROSE, TX) i l ll l 11 l l ll l l l l l 1 Il 1  !! L I ll l l 1

! 9. DIABLO CANYON 1 s2 101-30-74i 5.4 11 -

I - -

11 -

1 e4-84 1 - II -

1 - I - I l (SAN LUIs OstsPO, CA) 1 I ll 1 I ll l ll I I I I (INIT. 300. s/31/82) I i 11 l l ll 1 1 11 l 8 l I i 1 ll 1 I il i i 11 I I i 110. ENRICO FERMI 2 112-14-781 3.s ll 12-7s i e9-811 33 11 11-82 I 83-85 1 2s lj 12-81 103-82 I 3 I

_ l (LAGUNA 3CACH, MI) l l l l I ll l 3 la l 1 1 I (INIT. DEC. te/29/s2) l l  ; {# 1 I ll I I Il i i 1

i i i il 1 I ll 1 1 11 1 I I l  !!1. CRAND GULF 1 108-03-821 3.4 I l e7-31 1 e5-831 22 11 98-41 1 08-82 l 12 !! 10-s2 lle-s2 l. 8 1 1 (POR1 GIBSON, NS) I 1 Il l I ll l 1 ll 1 l l 1 (p15 HISSED 10/ZQ/J2) I i il I i 11 i f 18 1 I l (f00T9 TOILS Ort LASI PAGU I

i 5

1

-- - , ,, -.mana, -,n. ,,------w -- a -a-- - -- ~ - - ~ - --- --------- -s-, ---

O 'gwp

/

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL OCIDBLR 1, 1986 PAGE 2 0F 3 ,

TALLE to: SLIPPAGES IN OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS ,

~

FY 1982 - 1986 DOCKET DATAu l i I hl SAILTY DOCUMENISmm ll APPLICANT CONSIRUCTION ll ASLB HEARING SIART I I l lESTIMATED l NEEDED FOR HLARING ll COMPLETION ll (LAST PHASE) l I CASE i DOCKET l PLANT LI----------------------II----- ------------------ll----------------------l l l DATE I COST IIEARLIE5illATESilSLIP llEARLIESTI LATEST I SLIP llEARLIESTitATESil SLIP !

! I f(AILLION)ll DATE i DATE IIN M0.ll DATE l DATE IIN MO.ll DATE I DATE IIN MO.I i i i 11 1 1 Il i I il i I I i 112. HOPE CHLEK t 109-13-831 $4.15 ll 10-84 1 02-851 3 II 01-86 1 02-86 i t ll 06-85 102-85 1 -4 I I (SALEM, NJ) I l ll l l 11 1 I il i I I i I (ORDER 02/28/85) i i 1 l l 1 11 I I ll 1 1 1 I I I il I i Il i i 11 I I I 113. SHEARON HARRIS 1 102-23-821 3.0 ll 08-83 1 07-841 11 11 06-84 l 16-36 l 28 11 06-84 111-84 1 5 l l (RALEIGH, NC) l ll I l ll l l ll l l l (INIT. DEC. 04/28/86) ! l. Il l I ll l l ll l l l 1

1 I i 11 I I 11 1 1 l' 1 I I 114 LIMERICK t &2 109-08-811 3.82 ll 08-82 1 04-84 20 Il 10-83 1 ?2-84 1 14 la 01-83 110-84 1 20 1 I (PHILADELPHIA, PA) l l 11 I ll l l ll l l l 1 (INIT. DEC. 07/22/85) l l ll I ll l l ll l 1 l l l l  !! l .

Il l l ll l l l 115. MARBLE HILL 1 8' 2 104-26-83I 7.0 18 08-85 i N/S I - II 06-86 i N/S l - ll lFS l N/k 1 - 1 I (MADISON, IN) l l Il l l ll 1 l ll l l l l 1 . I il i I il 1 I il I i l 116. MIL 1AND 1 82 106-06-788 4.0 ll 05-82 i N/S l - la 97-83 i N/S - ll 12-82 1 N/S I - 1 I (MIDLAND, MI) l l ll l l ll l ll l I

l l

l l

3 l Il l II Il 117. NINE MILE POINT 2 106-17-83l 1 6.0 ll ;0-84 1 02-851 4 11 02-86 l 02-86 1 1 0 ll 08-83 108-83 1 0 1 I (SCRIBA, NY) l l ll l l (( l I ll l l 1 I (DISMISSE3 8/4/83) l l ll l 1 31 1 I ll l 1- 1 I I I il i i 11 I I ll l I I l18. PALO VERDE 1 109-30-801 3.1 ll 11-81 1 09-821 11 l 11-82 1 05-85 1 30 1 05-82 105-82 1 0 l I (PHOEMIX- AZ) I 13 I l l 1 l ;l I l l I (INIT. DEC. 12/30/82) i 11 1 1 l l 1 l l l l I 1 Il I I I 'l i I I J l19. PALD -VERDE 2 8 3  :

09-30-80l 6.0 ll 11-81 l 10-85 47 ll 11-83 1 12-85 l 15 1 05-82 101-85 1 32 1

( (PHOENIX, AZ) l l ll l ll l 1 ;l I l' l I (DRDER 07/22/85) i l ll l l ll 1 I ll 4 l l l 1 I il i I il I l- Il i I i 120. PERRY ( 103-24-811 3.2 ll 05-82 1 01-841 20 11 05-83 1 12-85 l 31 II 01-83 104-85 1 27 4 I (PAINESVILLE, OH) I  ! Il l l ll l l 18 l l l 1 (INI!. DEC. 09/03/85) l il i I il I; -1 Il  ! I I I I il i 1 Il I ll 1 I i 121. RIVER BEND 1 i 10-O'-411 3.9 11 10-87 l 10-841 24 li 10-83 08-85 1 22 il 94-13 110-84 l 18 I

_ 1 ( E ATON ROUGE, L A) H I I I j l ll l ll l l l l (ORDER 11/20/84) i l 1 i l  !! I il i  ! l 1 I u a I i 11 I il i I I 122, SAN ONOFRE 2 8 3 105-12-771 4.17 ll 02-81 1 G2-821 12 11 04-81 07-82 1 15 l 07-81 108-81 1 1 I l (SAN CLEMLNTE, CA) I i ll l l Il I l ll l l 1 i (INIT. DEC. 5/14/82) i I il I I il I I il i I I I I I I: 1 I 11 1 I il I I i 123. SEABRO3K 1 111-30-811 4.5 1 , ci-82 1 06-841 29 il 01-83 1 07-86 1 35 Il 04-83 104-85 1 24 l (EQ,R T>MI T H, NH) l I ff f 1 11 1 I Il 1 1 1

- 00 HOIES 6N LASI PAGE) l

O ** f \

A!0MIC SAF L1Y AND L Irt NSING SUARD Pant t of f ost R 1 .19A6 f W.! 1 07 $ ,

TABLE 10: SL IPF AGLS IN OPL RA t ING L ICENSt. PR0fff?IN #,

FY 1982 - 1986 DOCKET DATA

  • I I 7' ll SAFEIY DOCUMLNISam II APPLICANT CONSTRUCTION ll ASla HEARING SiART I (LAST PHASE) i 1 lESTIMATEDil NEEDLD FOR HEARING 'I COMPLETION ll l I CASE i DOCKET I PLANT ll----------------- --II------------------------!l----------------------l I l DATE I COST llEARLIESilLATESilSLIP llEARLIESTl LATEST l SLIP !lEARLIESTILATESTI SLIP l i I l(BILLION)ll DATE i DATE IIN MO.ll DATE i DATE IIh M0.11 DATE i DATE IIN MO..

854. SHONLHAH I (BROOKHAVEN, NY)

-!02-24-771 $4.2 1 I la

~

l l

1 ll I

l

--h l

- II ll l l 1

l 1 1 I il I i 11 I I 11 1 I i 125. SOUTH TEXAS 1 a2 109-08-781 1.5 18 09-82 1 01-861 40 ll 09-83 1 06-87 1 45 11 03-83 106-86 1 39 l 1 (8AY CITY, TX) l i ll l 8  !! l I ll l 1 1

( (INIT. DEC. 08/29/80) I l ll l l ll l l ll l l l 1 1 1 18 I I il i I il I I i 126. SUMMER t 101-30-781 1.3 ll 02-81 1 01-821 18 II 08-8: I 10-82 1 14 ll C;-81 801-82 1 11 l l (C0ldMBI A, SC) l 1 11 l l  !! I I ll l l l l (INI). DEC. 8/4/82) l l Il I I 18 I i ll l l 1 1 1 1 ll 1 l ll l 1 11 1 I i 127. SUSQUEHANNA 1 &2 102-26-791 3.85 ll 04-81 1 09-811 5 11 06-81 1 09-82 I 15 11 03-81 110-81 1 7 l 1 (BLRWICK, PA) i I Il i I I I I  !! I I I (INIT. DEC. 4/12/82) l l l' l l l l l Il l I I i t i 1. 1 I 1: I e il I l l 128. V0GTLE 1 & 2 101-31-841 8.7 1 09-85 1 69-851 0 l' 12-86 1 05-87 1 3 ll 02-86 102-86 1 0 '

I (AUGUSTA, GA) 1 I l l l ll l l  !! l I i l i 18 1 1 Il I I il i i 129. NATERF022 3 103-08-791 2.06 ll 05-81 1 10-821 17 ll 97-82 1 03-85 1 32 11 12-81 102-83 1 14 1 1 (NEW ORLEANS, LAs i l ll l l ll 1 1 Il l I l l LIMIT. DEC. 3/26/83) l I ll l l ll l l ll l 1 I I I I il i 1 ll l l ll t i i 130. HOLF CREEK 1 101-23-811 2.67 11 04-82 1 12-831 ?0 ll 10-82 1 05-85 1 31 ll 07-83 101-84 1 6 1 1 (BURLINGTON, KS) l I ll l l ll l I ll l l l I (INIT- DEC. 7/2/84) l l Il 1 1 Il l I ll l l l l l 1 !I I I ll l :l 1 1 1 131. HPPSS 8 109-16-821 3.46 11 N/$ i N/S I - 11 12-84 N/S I - ll N/S l M/S l - 1 I (SATSOP, WA) i I ll l l ll l ll l l 1 1 I i 18 I I il i I ll l l I 103-03-831 3.81 ll 08-84 I N/S I - ll 12-85 i N/S I - 11 95-85

  • N/S I - l 132.WPPSS3 (SATSOP, MA) l I ll $ i ll l l ll l l l 1 1 I il i I 11 I I il l i I 133, 21MMER tous 111-02-771 3.1 ll 01-79 i e8-82: 43 11 11-81 1 12-84 1 37 11 07-81 101-84 1 30 l I (CINCINNATI, OH) I li l l l l 1 ll t l I I (DISMISSED 8/25/84) I il i 1 ll I l I il i I I

~ l ________. ---- _ - - = -

l l TOTALS: 43 i IS136.42 11 l 26 551 il i 26 I 597 Il i 26 1 366 8 i i l ll l CASES ll l CASES l ll l CASESI l t AVERAGE: UNITS I I 3.17 11 1 L 20 11 1 I 23 11 1 1 14 i e ALL DATES ARE F02 FIRST UNIT COMPLETED NHCRE TRO UNITS WERE CONSIDERED IN ONE PROCEEDING. DATES ARE TAKEN FROM BEVILL REPORT DATA FROM SECY-80-508 (NOVEMMER 17, 1980) THROUGN SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 AND ASLBP RECORDS.

au SAFETY DOCUMENTS ARE COMPRISED OF TH2 SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT AND ONE TO THENTY SUPPLEMENTS TO IT. "EARLIEST DATE*

! - REPORTED SINCE NOVEMBER 1980 IS FOR THE SAFE!Y EVALUATIbN REPORT FOR THE FIRST UNIT; "LATEST DATE" IS FOR THE LATEST r

SCHEDULED SUPPLEMENT TO THAT SER, ALTHOUGH ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS MAY I~ REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE HEARING. THE FEMA

! FINDING ON EMERGENCY PLA.4NING USUAiLY CCPES SUB*TANTIALLY LATER.

l

,e

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

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20148P802&oldid=2845437"