ML20031F632
| ML20031F632 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/16/1981 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110200238 | |
| Download: ML20031F632 (91) | |
Text
_
I NUCI.ZAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D
O 1
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O
l In the Matter of:
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (Three Mile Isla.3d Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-289 (Restart)
DATE:
October 16, 1981 PAGES: 23,372 - 23,460 AT:
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
./
fS
'\\
lg Ocy
/) ')
'R "" y,?li;;%on k
0 is
- T{ g
[ of ALDERSOX REPORTING O
f.
400 Virginia Ave., S.W. Wasiling On,
C.
C.
20024 O
- 1 =ac== = <20:) 554-2245 9110200238 811016 PDR ADOCK 05000289 T
. = - -.- -
1 l
23,372 SC I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
x
().
4 In the matter of:
Docket No. 50-289 0
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (Restart)
R h
6l (Three Mile Island Unit 1) f k
7 i____________________x s
E 8
n d
9 Harrisburg II Buildina 333 Market Street j
10 Harrisbura, Pennsylvania s,
!d II Friday, October 16, 1931 M
d 12 5
9 PREHEARING CONFERENCE O-13 e
?
Hearing in the above-entitled matter convened g
14 at 9:05 a.rc.,
pursuant to notice.
E 15 E
BEFORE:
16
.-F GARY MILHOLLIN, Special Master, h
17 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board
=
b IO - lc On behalf of the Licensee, Metropolitan Edison Company:
g f
I9 GEORGE F. TROWBRIDGE, Esq.
g ERNEST L. BLAKE, JR.,
Esq.
20- !
BONNIE GOTTLIEB, Esq.
I Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 2I l
1800 M Street,-N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 22 23,
i 24 ]
O 25 ;l P
I
}
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1
l t
23,733 ms-l l
I On behalf of the Comnonwealth of Pennsylvania:
l
. O 2
I ROBERT ADLER, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General 3
505 Executive House Harrisburg, Pennsylvania C)
On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt:
e-5 E
3
' JOHN CLEWETT, Esq.
e 6
d The Christic Institute E
1324 North Capitol Street u
7 Washington, D.C.
20002 N
j E
8 A
On behalf of Three Mile Island Alert:
d d
9 7-LOUISE BRADFORD 1011 Green Street 10 4
j Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102
=
E 11 g
on behalf of the Regulatory Staff:
d 12 Z
LUCINDA LOW SWART 7.,
Esq.
3 JOSEPH GRAY, Esq.
13
( }.
j DAVID WIGGINTON, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director E
14 y
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 15 washington, n.c.
w=
J 16 d
17 x
C M
18
=H E
la 5
a n
20 21
)
d 22 l
(2) 23 24 i
25
?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
(
23,374 I
l 1
1 eagcggg1ggg I
(_m) 2 ]
(9:05 a.m.)
3 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
The hearing will now come to order.
g-4 Good morning.
We have met today for the purpose of
%s e
5 reporting on our progress in discovery.
Before we do that, are E
N h
6 there any preliminary matters which any party would like to R
R 7
present?
E 8
8 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Mr. Chairman, I have several pre-O d
9 liminary matters that could just as well come, however, after i
h 10 l we have had our session.with the other parties on discovery.
2 E
11 I might indicate some of the things that I wanted to
<3 d
12 discuss and let you choose the order of events.
We have to talk z
E d
13 a little about the scheduling, particularly of our witnesses at
/~S
=
\\ ')
~
14 the hearing.
We wish to -- particularly in light of the ASLB N
1 E
15 indication that it wishes to hear certain t:ltnesses.
5 y
16 We have a couple of very -- that's the main thing.
We 7:
p 17 do have other rather minor things.
E E
18 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
=
H'l 19 MS. SWARTZ:
The Staff has some preliminary matters xn 20 j if you want to hear them now.
21 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Go ahead.
22 l
MS. SWARTZ:
I wanted to indicate that this morning
(~)
23 I handed to the Special Master and to the parties a series of i
24 j documents.
The first is a letter to the Special Master giving
(~'i J
25 y answers to questions that he had posed to the Staff two weeks
\\>
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
23,375 l
I at the conference of parties.
(O f
~
_f 2
j JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Can you identify it by dates?
I
/
3 MS. SWARTZ:
It's dated October 15th.
4 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
I have that letter.
f}
e 5
MS. SWARTZ:
Next is an undated documented entitled E
N s
6.
" Synopsis of Testimony NRC Staff Will Present With Respect to c.
E 8
7 Preparation of its Examinations."
E 8
This one-page document is in response to a question d
d 9
that the Special Master asked of the Staff, and we are providing 5
I 10 l that today.
3 E
11 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Shall we assume that's dated October
<3 d
12 16?
?=
S 13 MS. SWARTZ:
Fine.
fT
\\)
E
[
14 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Have these documents been distributed E
E 15 to the other parties?
5 16 MS. SWARTZ:
Yes, they have.
j e:
b' 17 The third one is a revised response to Commonwealth 5
M 18 l of Pennsylvania Interrogatory No.
3.
A sentence was deleted from 5
{
19 the original version.
That, too, is undated.
At the top is M
f Commonwealth of Pennsylvania No.
3.
20 21 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Is there an attachment to this?
l 22 l
MS. SWARTZ:
No, there is not.
f\\
J 23 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
Shall we date it October i
24 16?
('#')
I 25 i MS. SWARTZ:
Fine.
'~
li l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
23,376 i
I j
Next is a copy of a note written by the NRC contract l
(J~)
2 grader.
He first acknowledged that they might have been cheating 3
on the April 1981 exams.
This was not given to the parties'in I
4 their document requests that were due yesterday.
It's a two-g_
V e
5 page document.
The first page says "From the desk of M.V.
Davis,"
Ma 6
and the second page is some handwriting -- Mr. Davis' presumably.
R I
ji 7
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
You distributed copies of this also?
E 8
MS. SUART":
- Yes, a
6d 9
Next is a copy of a signed certificate of service.
i E
10 Unfortunately, an unsigned copy went out to the parties on E
E 11 Wednesday.
}
e 5
over and make some judgments on it.
E9 j
6 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Ve ry well.
Do you anticipate having 8
7 the motion available in written form after the break?
~n 8
8 MR. CLEUETT:
Yes.
We anticipate that.
n O
d 9
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Perhpas we could take the matter up 5
j 10 then.
At least at that time we can consider or I can consider
_Z!
11 whether it would be appropriate to have parties respond to it il d
12 today.
z
\\
t
=
13 MS.-SWARTZ:
Excuse me.
The Staff I don't believe 5
E 14 could respond to it that quickly.
He would need to take it back
- s E
15 and get more information from people in Bethesda.
w=
j 16 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
2 6
17 i Are there other preliminary matters?
Then each party 5
18 should indicate what documents they have received by way of
=
H
{
19 discovery at this point.
E 20 Mr. Clewett, did you have something further?
21 MR. CLEWETT:
Yes.
One other thing.
He would also i
22 l like to move to have several additional issues' included in this (O
23 proceeding.
We do not currently have that document prepared-0 1
24 j but would hope to have that prepared after the break for
(
25 i potential consideration by the Special Master at that point.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l l
23,380 1
1 JUDGE MILilOLLIN:
Very well.
Could we then go forward 2 l with responses by the parties indicating whether they have i
3 received and when they have received the materials which were s
4 scheduled to be served yesterday?
I should say delivered
()
n 5
yesterday.
$j 6
MS. SWARTZ:
This norning the Staff received a two-4 4
5 7
page document entitled, "Aamodt Responses to Licensee's First 1
l 8
Set of Discovery Requests," and a three-page document entitled, d
d 9
"Aamodt Responses to NRC Staff's First Set of Discovery Requests."
N i
E 10-I'm sorry.
We also received a set of documents from the Licensee, E_
E 11 their responses to the Intervenors' questions.
<3 0
12 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Is there any matter which you are z
E
. Os l
13 anticipating receiving which has not been delivered to you, any
=
l 14 discovery request that remains unanswered?
E 15 MS. SWARTZ:
I haven't had a chance to look at the E
16 discovery that was handed to us this morning.
I an not missing
]
7:
d 17 any from TMIA.
They did not owe us any.
And our interrogatories x
h 18 to the Licensee have been taken care of.
=H E
19 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
So the only matter which a
=n 20 is outstanding from your point of view is the adequacy of the L
21 responses which you have just been given by the Aamodts, is that 22 correct?
23,
MS. SWARTZ:
Yes.
l 24ll MR. ADLER:
The Commonwealth received the same two
)
b 25 documents this morning.
We received a set of documents from 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,'INC.
I i
23,381 l
l I
both the NRC and the Licensee yesterday afternoon, and the A
1 V 2 l Commonwealth has no outstanding discovery request.
3 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Are you prepared to say whether they -
()
are you prepared now to say that your requests have been satisfied?
4 5
g MR. ADLER:
To the extent that I have perused the 4
j 6
documents -- I haven't read all of it.
~
6 Q
7 l
JUDGE CLEWETT:
Mr. Clewett.
5*
8 M
MR. CLEUETT:
We received yesterday a box of documents Y
9 from the Licensee at about 5:30 in the afternoon.
We received
?
10 we also received documents from the Staff, I believe it was
=
II earlier that day; it might have been the day before.
The only e
12 7
question that has arisen at this point, although we have not r
13 had time to review all of the documents that we have gotten --
(--}
x-I4 one of the responses from the Licensee to interrogatories E
5 l
{
15 appears to be factually incorrect.
I'm not sure this is the i
=
right time to go into that.
z 17 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
But you have received at least y
M 18 l
responses to all the requests?
P I9 E
MR. CLEUETT:
Yes, we have received responses.
e 0
l JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
2I MS. BRADFORD:
TMIA also received responses from the 22 Licensee yesterday afternoon.somewhere around 6:00.
And although
(-)
v 23 the NRC made delivery yesterday, I did not pick up their J
24 deliv~;-; antil this morning at 8:00.
So in both cases I have gS
(._/
s 25 had a chance to glance through the Licensee's material.
I have ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. ~ -
l 23,352 I
i l
t 1 j had no opportunity whatsoever to look through the NRC material,
()
and I am in no way prepared to answer whether they are complete.
2 3
l MR. TROWDRIDGE:
Mr. Chairnan, we also received the I
4 two Aamodt responses to the Staff and Licensee first set of
(}
e 5
interrogatories.
We have -- and I guess we have received the An h
6 NRC responses to Aamodt interrogatories, as well as their
^nj 7
responses to TMIA and the Commonwealth.
'n j
8 We have received since October 2 a further set of Ud 9
interrogatories from TMIA which we will discuss with them during N
E 10 the break, and the answers to which would be due by October 26.
i E
11 We have not received at this point any other additional
<k d
12 discovery request, and I don't know -- just for planning the z=
< (V y
13 break I would like to know whether we are going to now receive
~g
=
l 14 additional discovery requests during the break?
2 15 MS. BRADFORD:
TMIA is not prepared at this time to E
g' 16 make additional discovery request until we have had sufficient i
d 17 time to go over the material that we have already received.
And E
18 it is with that in mind that I would ask the Special Master to 5
{
19 extend the leriod of discovery, because it has been an excessive M
l burden on us to receive these documents only yesterday evening 20 21 and attempt to prepare some further request today.
It was 22 l
impossible.
23 He have talked with the Staff and have come to some 24 agreement that we would make informal discovery with them through
()
25 y telephone contact; and I would be perfectly willing to do that.
1 i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
23,383 l
1 The thing I would like to stress is that our further s/
2 discovery not be linited at this time, and that we would still 3
I have time to cone back and make further discovery as a result I
()
4 of the first discovery request.
e 5
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Mr. Chairnan, I would point out that R
N N
6 the schedule was established at the last prehearing conference, e
9 3
7 at which point it was understood by everyone that discovery
~
j 8
responses would be due in hand yesterday and that any additional 0d 9
discovery requests would be due this morning.
And we spent our
/
O g
10 last evening at least considering what further discovery request 1
{
11 we may need to make.
Perhaps this is also a subject which should
's j
12 be discussed during the break, but I would like to inquire of E
13 Ms. Bradford at this point whether she is talking strictly about
("}
j 14 follow-on discovery in further pursuit of answers given to the
- =
15 first set, or -whether she is talking about brand-new areas of j
=
j 16 discovery.
J.
d 17 MS. BRTDFORD:
I am talking about follow-on discovery.
x
=
t 18 JUDGE MILIlOLLIN:
I have a suggestion to make.
The
=H
{
19 parties who are furnishing responses to discovery know what they'
=
20 l furnished.
I assume that the Licensee and the Staff could help 21 you understand rather quickly what it is that they furnished to i
22 ' you during the break and could explain to you how their responses Cs 23,
respond to what you requested, since the subject of your 24 j
request has already been discussed and negotiated to a considerable s
25 y extent.
So it might be quite feasible for you to at least becone d
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 23,384 l
l I
s 1
acquainted with the scope of the responses during the break.
r~s
')
2 MS. BRADFORD :
I would certainly appreciate that, but
(,
3 l it's my understanding of follow-on discovery -- and I did not 4
participate in this phase earlier -- that as a result of the e
5 documents that we were given and the response, that we would R
N j
6, then have further questions.
All I'm saying is that, you know, I
R there is no way that I could have responded in that way in so M
7 8
short a time, and it is for that reason that I an asking for Gd 9
an extension.
Y 10 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Perhaps we could talk about that 5
(
11 more intelligently after we have a chance to go through the a
p 12 documents during the break.
=
,=
13 MS. BRADFORD:
Certainly.
~
g 14 MR. TROUBRIDGE:
I got no answer to my question for 5
l planning purposes as to whether anybody, any other party has E
15 w=
J 16 additional discovery request for us today.
f d
17 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I think Ms. Bradford answered, at 5
5 18 least for herself.
I assume you would like to have answers by P
{
19 the other parties.
a l
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Yes.
So we can see who we want to 20 21 sit down with in what order.
5 22 MR. CLEHETT:
We will have at least some additional
[b i
23 request.
We also would like to note that the time in between 24 : last night and this morning is not adequate to evaluate what
/~s
~
2 25 h must be several thousand pages of material.
It was our l
l I
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
~.
l 23,385 1 l understanding that although there would be an opportunity this 2
morning for posing additional discovery requests, that it was t
4 -
3 not specified at the last time we met that this would be the 4
only such time.
And without necessarily reaching any decision e
5 on whether the discovery period would need to be extended, it 3n
. ould seem reasonable to allow further discovery requests during 6
w R
j R
7 that period which could, if necessary,-be ruled upon by means of
~
j 8
a conference call with the Special Master or some other convenient 0
=
9 arrangement.
i 5
10 l
But given the voluminous nature of the responses to the E
E 11 first set, it seems somewhat arbitrary to force all additional
<3 d
12 requests to be made this morning.
So we would join TMIA in 3
i
=
p' j
is requesting that some arrangement be made so that such further
=
v j
14 requests can be made.
E 15 MR. ADLER:
The Commonwealth has no additional I
5 g-16 discovery request at this time.
~
v:
b' 17 At the last prehearing conference we raised the i
E l
E 18 potential need for follow-on-discovery, and I had the impression
{
19 that a reasonable opportunity would be afforded if necessary.
n 20l 21 i'
22
~
.(J-23 l
24 n.
,O A
25d i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1
.... ~.
mas:2:1 i
i 23,386 I
MR. CLEWETT:
If I may, Mr. Aimodt would also like to
(
2 make some comments.
- 3. l MR. AAMODT:
We have not received from the Licensee all 4
of the information we had asked for in interrogatories earlier.
(}
5 5
We received a week or so before'our last meeting from the Licen-i 0
l 6
see batches of the exams given by Kelly and they were given in i
E I
j 6
7 i
one great big pile.
And in order to determine whether or not i
y a
l A
8 there is cheating we really have to know who was taking the exam i
4 9
together and many of the exams didn't have dates on them.
E 10 We didn't know what date they were given and I have x
=
4 11 requestel from the Licensee that infromation so we could group W
3 12 the examinations and make the analysis of cheating.
1 13 I owe it to you, Fox, to respond that we have deter-O z
5 14 mined to our own satisfaction, which is quite different from I
15 legal satisfaction that the cheating has been prevasive so you g'
16 can count on the fact that that will become an issue.
j d
17 n In addition to that we do have with us today a set of
(
5
{
18 l
interrogatories that we would like to discuss informally with C
19 the Licensee and with the staf f.
I think that rather than pre-n 20 )
sent them in any form I think it would be much better that we i
21 l
talked them over beforehand because I unink some of what we are i
22
.asking we will have some argument concerning.
O 23,
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
I assume that any help h
24 l
you require with respect to dating and grouping the examinations
()-
25 could be furnished by the Licensee during the break, if the 6
1 I
ALDERSON REPORT!NG COMPANY. INC.
2:2
]
4.3,387 i
1 Licensee is riole to do so.
O i
2 l
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
We will discuss this, but some of the 3
information, as we indicated in our responses, is simply not O
4 eve 11ed1e.
we do not aeve the roem==maer, wae et im waet room, 5
g usr many of these exams.
n 6
MR. AAMODT:
We at least need to know who took them on 7
what days so it could at least be grouped by days.
E i
A 8l MS. SWARTZ:
The Staff has no further discovery for the a
d 9'
Licensee.
Y 10 I would like to add that it was our understanding when 11 we left the conference two weeks ago that the parties would is N
12 receive the answers to discovery requests and document requests, E
15 look them over and then be prepared today to ask the remainder of z
5 14 their discovery.
And when the people who asked the questions 15 i
realized -- should have realized the extent of the material they 16 were receiving, yet they still agreed we would come back today j
J.
{
17 and have discovery responses.
b 18 To a certain extent that may be unfair, but that was 5
19 l the Staff's understanding and I thought the other parties' under-6 i
20 j standing two weeks ago.
21 )I MS. BRADFORD:
7t was my understanding when we last i
22 met that although the 15th would be the final day that we would 23 be receiving documents i Joughout that period, that we would 24 not necessarily get them in one huge delivery.
25 j And so I arroneously, I realize nos, understood that we i
I l
Ai_DERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
2:3 l
23,388 4
I I
1 could be working on and throughout that period, and it was for i
V 2
l that reason that I agreed.
3 MS. SWARTZ:
The Staff did attempt to send as many
()
4 documents out as possible.
We sent out the documents that had e
5 been sent to the Licensing Board and the Special Master on the M
N h
6 18th of September with the letter designations rather than the M
7 names for the complete deletions, as it was originally sent to l
N i
j 8
the parties.
d d
9 We were unable to send all of the April 18, 1981, exam-10 inations.
There were 56 in numbers.
They had to be reproduced
$j 11 and they had to have the names deleted and letter designations u
12 put on, which is why we couldn't send it out earlier.
We did 13 try to get as many of the documents to the parties as early as
[}
l E
14 possible.
N=
2 15 MR. TROWBRIDGF:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain E
y 16 one matter.
We have served both answers to questions and docu-i d
17 ments not only on the party making the request but on all other x=
M 18 l parties.
This is not customary in licensing proceedings.
=
19 Normally copies of interrogatory requests and inter E
20 J
rogatory responses are served on all parties and on the Board.
21 With respect to document requests, the requests are i
~
22 l
served on the other parties and the Board.
The documents them-1 23j selves are served only on the party requesting them.
That's not 3
24 I
the practice we have followed here.
Everybody has a complete 25 [
set of all of our responses and documents to each of the parties.
O I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
2:4
(
23,389 i
t 1
We also have here for the Special Master a complete set k
2 of all of these documents, including the documents that have been 3
requested.
In part, some of our answers to interrogatories refer i
(
4 i
to documents, so that even for the Special Master to have what C/
g 5
he would normally have -- written responses to interrogatories --
6 you would have to have at least some of the documents that we 9
5 7
l provided as well as our answers to the interrogatories. And we
~
j 8
have a rather large box for you. If you need help in carrying it d
9 please let us know.
?
10 i
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Are there any other matters which we x
11 l should take up before our break?
i j
12 MS. B RADFORD:
I have one further thing.
()
g 13,
TMIA, when we were finished going through these docu-l La g
14 ments, we felt we have a need to make depositions because depo-ae E
15 i sitions,1re a costly proposition.
5 i
We have been able to find court reporters who are f
16 0
willing to volunteer their time and we would ask, although at 17[l b
5 7
18 l
this point I am not prepared to give a list of people that we 5
19 will be requesting to depose -- but I am just alerting the Board n
20 that we will be requesting this and that Tee would be requesting i
21 to make these depositions in the evening, since our volunteer 22 j
people would be only available at that time and I don't know if i
N 23 g that's an irregular request.
4 24 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Well, it's certainly not a request
)
'~
25 g which apparently you are prepared to reduce to writing today, as ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
2:5 I
23,390 l
required.
I take it it's not follow-on you are talking about 1
L 2
because you wouldn't have known what to follow.
I 3
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Why don't we assume that's a subject A
4 which you can also discuss at the break?
U e
5 MS. BRADFORD: Fine.
6 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
It appears to me that the momentum R
R 7
now is building in the direction of a break.
E 1
[
8 (Laughter.)
0 d
9 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Which I suppose it is timely to
'd 10 recognize.
So let's do this.
Let's adjourn until 11:00.
It's
(
j 11 possible that you could finish your business sooner than that, is j
12 but I would be quite surprised if you did.
E.
g 13 We shall meet back here at 11:00 for a progress report.
[
14 I will be available in the meantime in the Heritage Room, which 2
15 3
I understand is vacant today.
I will make arrangements with the N
.]
16 guard to find me if you should require my attention during the i
b' 17 i time between now and 11:00, so we will stand adjourned until N
18 11:00.
5 19 (Recess f rom 9 : 30 a.m.
to 11:00 a.m.)
n i
l JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
The hearing will come to order.
20 21 Do the parties have a report on their progress?
22 l MR. CLEWETT:
May it please the Special Master, we 23 have been meeting with the Staff of the NRC.
That meeting, I k
24 l
believe, is very close to being finished.
We have not at this O
25,j point met with.the Metropolitan Edison representatives.
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
=
!' mas:3:1 23,391 i
l 1
l JUDGE MILL!OLLIN:
Other reports?
I 2
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
We met with TMIA and essentially 3
concluded our discussions with TMIA and have been waiting for our l
4 turn with the Aamodts.
I anticipate that might be a fairly
{}
g 5
lengthy discussion.
O j
6 MS. BRADFORD:
TMIA has not yet met with the Staff and E
l E
7 j
I don't know how long that will take since I haven't really been r
E r
j 8
able to look over the documents they have, so I won't have many d
d 9
requests as of yet.
i.
h 10 15. FNARTZ:
We were talking with the Aamodts earlier.
E E
11 We talked about their answers to her interrogatories.
They gave
<3 y
12 us some supplemental information concerning one interrogatory and
=,
E 13 have agreed to answer one of our interrogatories more fully.
i 2
[
14 We have rephrased our interrogatory slightly.
We will i
E 15 I
arrange with them a convenient date when their response should 5_
y 16 be due and if we have any problems we will come to you with that.
7:
p 17 Then we discussed with them their interrogatories to 5
E 18 l
up.
We have one problem with one of the interrogatories.
I don' ;
5 l
{
19 know if you want to hear that now or later.
And then they have 5
20 l asked us for other interrogatories and are in the process of i
I 21 developing another one.
i 22 i
In the Staff's view, the interrogatories, the four they I O i
! J
[
23 did write down and the one they are developing, are not follow-24 on interrogatories.
It was our understanding that it would be
'~'
25 follow-on based on information that we have provided.
If that's I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
3:2 l
23,392 l
l 1
l my misunderstanding, that's fine.
I don't understand what it was O
j that the Special Master had ruled concerning follow-on discovery 2
3 l
for today.
4 MR. CLEWETT: If I might briefly respond, it seems from g
5 our discussion this morning is that there remains a question as N.
j 6,,
to whether there will be further discovery allowed other than R
l 7
l follow-on discovery after this meeting today and tomorrow, if s
i j
8 necessary.
c.5 d
9 But it was my understanding that there was never any d
10 question but that today there would be an opportunity for any 5
h 11 sort of non-documentary discovery to be undertaken and it's a is j
12 bit vexatious that the Staf f seems so concerned to struggle so
=
13 hard to limit this.
They have a responsibility to serve the z
5 14 entire public and so --
U My impression from what you have 15 j
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
16 said -- all of you -- is that it would be efficient for us now
]
v.
d 17 l to adjourn until noon for the purpose of having the parties who x
h 18 have not discussed -- have not discussed their exchange of i
i P
I
~
19 g
{
information to do so.
n 20 MR. TROWBRIDGE :
Yes.
I think we will need all of 21 that time and I think we will need a brief meeting with the I
l 22 i
Staff.
23 !
MS. SWARTZ:
Excuse me.
Were you going to rule on whether 24 any kind of discovery was permitted today or --
25l JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
No.
I think it would be best.for
{
i fi ii ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
N 3:3 23,393 1'
I t
1 i
rulings and arguments to be postponed until the end of all the i
f 2
i discussions and then we'll just take them up one at a time, 3
unless the discussions somehow depend on a point which.somehow 4
has to be resolved by a ruling.
e 5
MS. SWARTZ:
No.
We have no problem with the inter-M" r
6 rogatories.
We have a problem with one interrogatory and do not
~n M
7 have problems with the others, assuming any kind cf discovery l
E.[
8 requests are permitted today.
U 9
JUDGE MILHOLLIN: Al1 right.
Then we'11 adjourn until 5
i 10 noon, at which time we will have another progress report and g
11 probably we will then adjourn for lunch.
B s
j 12 MR. ADLER:
Mr. Chairman, may I request whether the E
o 13 two motions referred to by counsel for the Aamodts this morning 14 are going to be forthcoming?
I can't plan a response or deter-I E
15 mine what our response will be to a motion I haven't received.
w=
y 16 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
That's a fair question.
v.
l MR. CLEWETT:
We are prepared to serve those now to
((
17{-
x=
i 18 l
the various parties.-
i P
l
[
19 l
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Mr. Adit r, does that meet your n
i 20 l
requirement?
4 21 MR. ADLER:
Yes.
I 22 l
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
I assume that if you have 23 any further requests to make at noon you can make them at that h
24l time.
O.
e 25)
Well, then, with that we will stand adjourned until b
ll O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
. _ _ ~ - _ -.
3:4 l
23,394 l
1 12:00.
O 2 l (Recess'll:15 to 12:00 noon.)
i 3 (
JUDGE MILIIOLLIN:
Do the parties have a report?
()
4 MR. TROWBRIDGE :
I think the Staff may have the main g
report, but in fact we have only gotten to talk to the Aamodts 5
6 in the last fifteen minutes and the Staff concluding discussions e'.
7-with the Aamodts lasted that long.
We have a considerable i
[
8 distance to go.
Gd 9
JUDGE MILL!OLLIN:
Are there other reports?
-A ty 10 MS. SWARTZ:
Yes.
${
11 We concluded our discussions with the Aamodts and a
p 12 with TMIA, With regard to the Aamodts' request apparently it a
=
13 was my misunderstanding.
Mr. Blake explained his understanding
(}
z 14 which coincides with that of the Intervenors about discovery 4j 15 requests and about how discovery requests on any interrogatories
=
y 16 on any matter not follow-on could be presented today.
So we e
t' 17 are withdrawing our objection that the interrogatories posed by 5wz 18 the Aamodts were not related to follow-on.
C 19 We still have one objection to one interrogatory that-g a
t 20 l
they did pose, but that is our only problem.
21
' JUDGE MILilOLLIN:
Very well.
Are there other matters i
22 which we might take up before we adjourn for lunch?
Yes?
[}
23 MR. CLEWETT:
I would just like to note for the 24 I
record that at the very beginning of this last break at 11:00 25 ;e we served our motion regarding the addition of issues to the r
i i
' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
.~---.
3:5 23,394 -A 1
hearing and our motion concerning the postponing of the NRC
()
2 test on all the parties and on theFSpecial Master.
3 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I might ask at this time that you
)
4 refresh my recollection as to when these tests will be given.
e S
MR. CLEWETT:
It's my understanding that these tests h
j 6
are supposed to be given starting on the 21st of October.
R 7
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Is the written exam scheduled for sl 8
that date?
d 9
MR. CLEWETT:
I believe that is the first of two ic h
10 dates for the SRO examination and I believe the RO examination j
11 would be given several days after that.
k j
12 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Is that the same as the Staff's 3
((}
13 recollection?
l 14 MR. BLAKE:
Excuse me.
I might be able to f actually.
$j 15 The exams.are already under way.
The oral examinations for;.the x
j 16 operators started this past week and they will extend,.J.I under-A p
17 stand, a three-week period.
18 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
=H
{
19 MR. BLAKE:
Yes, sir.
n 2h JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
This started last week?
21 MR. BLAKE:
That's correct.
This week they are in now.
]
22 This is the first of three weeks of oral examinations.
23 l JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
All right.
i 24 MR. BLAKE:
The written examinations are scheduled over
{")
25l a two-week period which would begin next week.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
3 i.~:
l 23,395 f
l I
i JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Over a two-week period beginning next
)
2 week?
1 3
MR. BLAKE:
Correct.
4 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
Are you prepared to argue
{}
e 5
this motion today or do you think you will be, Licensee?
E4 3
6 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Yes.
e R
E 7
MS. SWARTZ:
Yes, we could.
E i
j 8
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well, d
d 9
MR. CLEWETT:
If I may ask a factual question, it was
'd 10 our understanding that the NRC rules specified that the oral g
11 exams must be given within one month of the start of a plant.
B
- j. 12 Perhaps this is an erroneous impression on my part, but perhaps 5
O - f 13 the Licensee could clear this up if in fact it's a misunderstand-t 14 ing.
2 15 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
I suggest we have a discussion of that-l 5
/ -
16 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
]
J M
d 17 With respect to the motion to add additional issues
'N M
18 to the reopened hearings, are the parties willing to respond to i
=H
{
19 that today?
E 20 l
MS. SWARTZ :
Staff can' respond to that, j
21 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Yes.
22 JUDGE MILHOLLIN: The Staf f has stated there will be at 23 least one matter for ruling with respect to interrogatories, is i
24 that right?
c:>
25 l MS. SWARTZ:
Yes.
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
r
3:7 23,396 J
l 1
i JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Can any of the other parties enlighten
-( )
2 me as to whether there will be additional matters for ruling, or l
is it too soon?
3 4
MR. TROWBRIDGE :
We have one matter with TMIA which, c
5 unless we hear dif ferently, we'll have to ask for a ruling from N
j 6
the Board.
There is one open item between TMIA and ourselves.
R M
7 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
With respect to the Aamodts I take
~
~5 8
it it's too soon to know?
O d
9 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
It's too soon.
N I
10 l
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
In that case we are 3
{
11 prepared to break for lunch.
W I assume that the Licensee and the Aamodts will have j
12 l
=
13 at least an hour's work, so it probably would be best to schedule O
i 14 l
a report at 2:00 and if additional time is needed we could take 5
E 15 it then.
Is that agreeable?
5 y
16 Very well.
We will adjourn until 2:00.
i d
17 (Whereupon, at 12:12 o' clock p.m.,
the hearing was x=
t M
18 recessed, to reconvene at 2:00 o' clock p.m.,
the same say.)
5 E
19 K
20 j
21 22 OO 23,
i.
24)
<N 25]
'~
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
/
l 23,397 I
i I
l AFTERNOON SESSION (2 :05 p.m. )
O JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Do the parties have additional 2
l i
3
{ reports?
()
4 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Mr. Chairman, we have been meeting e
5 since 12:00 with the Aamodts.
He are not yet through, but we Eu 8
6 have covered a great deal of ground.
I would think it possible 1
Y 7
that we would be prepared -- that we would have finished with the j!
8 Aamodts in another half hour, possibly sooner.
O d
9 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
These are the only discussions which 5
10 are now outstanding, is that right?
Z_j 11 MS. SWART":
Yes, that's true.
He finished with both
's j
12 the Aamodts and TMIA.
=
~
j 13 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
=
{
14 In view of Mr. Clewett's absence, perhaps it would be best for us to just adjourn again for a period of time.
Shall 2
15 5
we make it a half hour?
y 16 A
MR. TROUBRIDGE:
Let's make it a half hour.
p 17 g 5
7 18 MR. AAMODT:
I think that will be fine.
5 E
19 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
Then we will adjourn A
20 until 2.45.
2I
'iRecess 2:10 p.m.
to 2:55 p.m.)
22
}
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Do the parties have another report?
(}
l MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I think we are 23]
t 24 l all ready.
(")
u/
i 25 j I have a suggestion as to the order in which we might i
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i 23,398 l
I 1
address things.
I would suggest that we take up first those very s
2 few rulings -- only one as far as the Licensee is concerned, 1
3 and I'm not sure as to the Staff -- an objections'to discovery
()
4 requests received today in the way of interrogatories, and we e
5 also discussed some depositions regeests we have received today.
En d
6 I would then propose that we discuss the subject of e
9 8
7 follow-on discovery; and then, hoping Mr. Clewett is back, that N
j 8 g we deal with the tud AamodE motions; after that that we take up dd 9
and also answer the question that the Staff asked as to who is Y
10 going to respond to the Staff motion for reconsideration.
And 6
5 11 then we go on to matters I mentioned this morning, particularly
<k d
12 the scheduling of Licensee witnesses and a few cdds and ends.
z 5
i
~'s N
13 I
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Is that schedule agreeable to the j
(d i
g A
14 other parties?
15 MS. SWARTZ:
It's agreeable with the Staff.
E 16 MR. ADLER:
Yes.
g v:
6 17 MS. BRADFORD:
It's agreeable with TMIA.
x=
18 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Let me start off, because we have 5
E 19 received from TMIA interrogatories dated October 8, the responses 5
20 to which would be due October 26.
We have sat down with Ms.
21 Bradford, and she has made three or four minor other modifications i
22 which we requested.
We have nothing to ask the Special Master 23 to rule on with respect to TMIA interrogatories.
We have from the Aamodts two sets of interrogatories 24 s
25 scratched out during the long recess,-one containing only five E
i 1
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.-INC.
23,399 t
1 I interrogatories there is no disagreement on.
I I
f')
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Which document is that?
Do I have
(
2 l
3 a copy of that?
r~)
4 MR. TROUBRIDGE:
I don't think you have it, because
(/
e 5
you're not going to be asked to rule on anything.
Eo N
6 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
e
^
N 2
7 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
You should have a document with 14 --
~n
' several pages.
j 8
Od 9
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Yes, I have that document.
5 E
10 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
All right.
As to that document, we x
I 11 will object only to the fourteenth interrogatory, and we'll ask
<W y
12 a ruling of taa Board on Interrogatory 14.
-c s
13 '
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
For purposes of the record this j
14 document is entitled, Second Set Interrogatories For Licensee,"
1 E
15 and we shall date it October the 16th, 1981.
E MR. TROUBRIDGE:
He have also received or have been 16g 5
l d
17 shown a copy by the Aamodts of the request for depositions.
I'm i
w i
=
18 not sure whether or not the Special Master nas that in front of
- H E
19 him or whether it's been reproduced.
A 20 l MR. AAMODT:
It hasn't.
It wasn't in the form of a 21 request in which I solicited whom we wanted to depose.
f MR. TROWBRI6GE:
I think the simplest thing at this 22
'O 23 point when we get to discussing it -- it's not a long -- there 24 are three items on it.
I think the Aamodts could read it into
<g l
25 !
the record at that time.
I I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
s.
-n
.--,,w a
g,.--
m-e n-p y.ane w
,wa u-g
-,w-y
1 1
i 23,400 j
i 1
1 JUDGE MILIIOLLIti:
Very well.
2 Do you wish to raake an argument now concerning i
f 3
Interrogatory No. 147 4
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
I can do that now, and then we'll l
h e
5 turn to the Staff.
j i
N i
3 6
JUDGE MILIIOLLIll:
Is that agreeable to the Staff?
t e
i G
8 7
MS. SWART", :
That's fine with us.
1 N
i 8
8 a
f
'd i
9 j
10 t
E
=
E 11 IS i
0 12 1
i 1
i I.
14 w
(
l E
15 x
f
[
.]
16 b'
17 m
E 18
=
i i
19 t
x
'e 20 l 21 22 0
23 24 i
L O
j r
25 ll 1
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
5:1: mas l
i 1
MR. TROWBRIDGE :
Interrogatory 14 asks the Licensee to 2
describe all tests given to unlicensed personnel, including scope, 3
job classification of examinees, dates of test, and proctoring
()
4 arrangements.
In Licensee's view this broad request on tests for e
5 unlicensed personnel -- and we described the f act that we have M9 3
6 about 20,000 in the 2-1/2-year period in the last pre-hearing 5
7 conference -- is not one of these specifically -- not one of the
.f8 types of examinations which has been specifically included in d
d 9
issue number 1.
5 E
10 And in our view no showing has been made which would E
{
11 warrant this kind of excursion.into tests of urlicensed personnel b
- j 12 I understand that the Aamodts may have other bases, but I under-
=
13 stand they would take the view that the response which they have
()
14 made to our discovery request to describe the mystery witness j
2 15 and what he would -- and what we would testify to as to cheating 5
y 16 at TMI-l on a test given to -- tests at TMI-l involving managemen W.
b 17 and cheating.
I don't know whether the Special Master has a copy
^
5 18 of that response to our interrogatories or not.
j y
3 19 Do you know whether you provided a copy of that respons e I
M 20 to the Special Master? MR. CLEWETT:
Yes, I believe it was provided.
22 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
I should say that the Aamodts actually
{
23 supplied responses to our interrogatories and to the Staff and-24 j
hopefully you have them both.
s 25)
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I have them both.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
5:2 l
23,402
}
l l
l 1.
MR. TROWBRIDGE: I would think if you have not read them 2
Judge Milhollin, that it would be worth taking long enough for
()
3 l you to read them quickly before we g'o on.
4 (Pause.)
e 5
JUDGE PILHOLLIN:
Go ahead.
E N
3 6
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
All right.
e R
l As a preliminary matter I would point out that these R
7 j
8 interrogatories are not accompanied by an affidavit.
We under-G d
9 stand that the Aamodts will produce such an af fidavit, presumably N
l 0
10 l
by Mr. Williams, but by someone who is able to represent that the E
{
11 facts as stated are as stated.
a p
12 This, in our view, does not constitute a threshold E
13 showing of the kind which would justify now jumping into all z
3 14 unlicensed tests, among other reasons because as you can see from E
15 reading the interrogatory response the Aamodts have not yet come 5
16 up with any showing of management involvement in the alleged g
i d
17 episode and in fact propose to develop that through further N
M 18 l
discovery.
19 Even apart from that I would not think that one radiation n
20 worker permit test in the hectic month following the accident, 21 a few weeks -- five or six weeks -- past the accident, would i
22 l
constitute a basis for general inquiry into all unlicensed tests.
O 23,
I should emphasize that we are not objecting to a series 24 i
of discovery requests by the Aamodts concerning this early May O
I 25 'j 1979 event for the very good reason that it is one -- that event j
h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
j 23,403 5:3 l
r I
1 i
is a specific issue and allowed in the proceeding.
(2) 2 l
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Mr. Clewett?
I MR. CLEWETT:
The essence of the focus of this question 3
()
4 is an attempt to discovery whether it was standard practice for g
5 the Licensee to fail to adequately proctor the tests given to E
j 6
unlicensed personnel.
We are not attempting to delve deeply into E
i 5
7 i
all tests or any test given to unlicensed personnel but to Nj 8
determine the nature of the proctoring arrangements of those O
d 9
tests.
N E
10 And to that extent we view the tests as a reasonable E
i f
11 area of inquiry.
a j
12 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
I would ask the Special Master and
=
({}
13 Mr. Clewett to read again the request:
describe all tests --
[
14 that's a description of the test n-given for unlicensed per-t i
E 15 l
sonnel, including scope of the test, job classification of the 5
16 examinees, the dates of the test -- 20,000 -- and proctoring j
1.
d 17 arrangements.
5 E
18 MR. CLEWETT: If it would facilitate this process we
=H[
19 would be most willing to change the word " describe" to the word M
20
" list".
We are interested in finding out the nature of the 21 proctoring arrangements and we are not intent on requiring any i
i 22 elaborate study of the minor details of however many tests there 23j may have been but to try to get some feel for the nature of the 4
24 proctoring arrangements.
e-25 j
We feel that if in fact the proctoring arrangements on 1
l ALDERSON REPORT!NG COMPANY. INC.
t
5:4
[
23,404 l
I tests are generally as bad as they appear to have been on the
()
2 l
radiation work permit test that we have referred to, that that 3
would be a significant matter that the Special Master and the 4
Board would be interested in learning about.
e 5
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
I heard the thing -- I still read this Rn 6
list, 20,000 tests given to unlicensed personnel, including the G
7 scope, job classification of examinees, the dates of the test and E
i j
8 the proctoring arrangements.
Od 9
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
It is your position that this is too
-i Oy 10 burdensome?
{
11 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
It is too burdensome and it is outside M
j 12 the scope of specifically listed examinations which are to be
=
13
-- on which inquiries and discovery on testing as to cheating is
]
3 z
5 14 clearly allowed.
E 15 Beyond that, it is both extremely burdensome and broad E
y 16 and without the threshold showing, in my view, that would justify 2
(
17 any inquiry into unlicensed tests.
E l
E 18 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I think that this wording indicates 5
I
[ 19 a failure of negotiation. It is, as stated, too broad to survive R
20 the objection, but it probably could be made specific enough to 21 be acceptable.
I 22 l
I don' t think I should supervise in open hearing
(
I 23' negotiations with respect to particular wording.
So my ruling 24 l.is that as written it's too broad to survive the objection and
(:)
4 25y I suggest that the parties negotiate further with the object of ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
-n--
I 23,405 6:1 I i narrowing it to the point where it is acceptable.
g
-s MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Let me go on to the Aamodts' deposi-2l 3
tion list, and at this point I think Mr. Clewett or Mr. Aamodt 4
might read into the record the three items of deposition request.
()
s C
5 MS. SWARTZ:
Excuse me.
The Staff has an objection to 0
3 6
one Aamodt interrogatory also.
I don't know if you want to handle b^
l 5
7 that now or if when the Licensee is all through with this discus-W' l
8 sion.
d d
9 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Perhaps we should just go ahead and
'i O
10 finish up the Licensee's objections.
It would be a considerable d
II accommodation to me to have a copy of what we're discussing.
1 a
MR. CLEWETT:
I'm not sure that copies have been made f
I2 l
. (~%
g 13 of this.
There are three items, none of which is very long.
s,/
m 4
5 I4 If it would facilitate the process I would be happy to z
{
15 read that into the record.
m 4
d 30 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
All right.
e d
17 MR. CLEWETT:
The first person that we would like to 5
{
18 depose is the proctor in charge of the radiation work permit test E
I9 given to the catalytic personnel in early May of 1979.
g n
20 l
The second item is the project manager of the ATT or 21 l
ATTS contractor auditors.
22 And the third item is those individuals who sat for s.
23' the NRC April 1981 licensing exam who are still employed by g
24 Licensee.
25 l!
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
You are saying you want to depose these l
i
}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
23,406 l
1 1
people?
2 MR. CLEWETT:
Yes.
3 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
The last group includes those people
(}
4 who sat for which exam -- the SRO or the RO exam?
g 5
MR. CLEWETT:
O
{
6, MR. TROWBRIDGE :
Our position is this is not the --
E 7
depositions cannot be taken.
Our positions is that these depo-j N
sitions could have been identified at any time during or af ter j
8 i
Gd 9
the earlier pre-hearing conference and we feel entirely justified
'd 10 in insisting that any deposition request should have been made in
?
{
11 accordance with the Commission's rule of practice, a
B j
12 This would have included -- and we don't have it now --
=
13 a written request identifying the individual, indicating the 14 subject matter on which the deposition will be taken, identifying 5
E 15 the place and time at which the deposition is to be taken, all 5
g' 16 with a reasonable advance notice so as to permit this kind of 1.
p 17 scheduling.
E M
18 There are other requirements of the Commission's rules E
19 of practice, none of which' we propose to waive.
n 20 l JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
How many persons are we including in l-21 1
this request?
4 J
22 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
All of the -- the first of -- each 23 involved one person.
24 l
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
How many are there in the third one?
25fi MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Something -- there were 36 candidates i
l' i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~
=.
I 23,407 i
a 1
to have been terminated and there has been an attrition of two,
()
2 l
maybe three more in just personnel turnover.
i 3
MR. CLEWETT:
If I may, I might note that our resources 4
certainly do not allow us to depose all of these.
We would
.}
(
e 5
certainly not be able to do more than a sampling as a practical h'.
3 6
matter.
M 7
l I might also note for the record that the Licensee s
l j
8 indicated'to us earlier today their desire to depose Mr. Williams d
o}
9 and that request also was not written.
It did not state the
?
10 subject matter of the deposition nor did it indicate any place 2
x
{
11 or time, so to the extent that there has been a lack of absolute u
i
'J 12 adherence to the rules it is not a one-sided thing.
13 MR. TRONBRIDGE:
Mr. Chairman -- Judge Milhollen -- we h
14 received this reponse to our interrogatories sometime after p
15 6:30 last night.
That's when our person who did the delivering
^
x g
got back with the package.
We did not know until we received it t
16 2
d 17 whether the Aamodts were going to elect to respond to that inter-w=
18 l
rogatory by yesterday or not.
=
19 We had no identification of the individual prior to i
-X e
20 l
last night.
We have told Mr. Clewett that as soon as we get back i
21 to the office where there's a typewriter and other necessary I
22 facilities we will confirm this deposition request.
I 23 And while we're on it, it's my understanding that the 1
24 j
Aamodts are agreeable to that deposition request and to a request i
l 25 )
which will be made at the same time for documents which Mr.
4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I L
23,408 l
i 1
Williams may have regarding this incident, including any manu-l O
l crive or e do x thee ne 1 writies aica ter the be 1 er 2
l an article which appeared not too lo'ng ago in the Pack Stand 3
4 IIerald concerning this incident.
g 5
JUDGE MILL!OLLIN:
Mr. Clewett, how many persons do you i
j 6
think you intend to depose?
l i
2 7
MR. CLEWETT:
Perhaps on the order of a half a dozen, 3
l g
8 as to the third item of these, i
0 n;
9 If I may add, this would, of course, be dependent on
?
10 what we learn.
If it turns out from interviewing the first few I
l i
{
11 people that there has been wide-scale cheating, we might attempt is j
12 to depose a greater number, if that 's possible.
h 13 MS. BRADFORD:
Judge Milhollin, TMIA also will have
- O!
14 some deposition requests. Speaking with both the Licensee and E
f 15 the Staff we came to, I think, an understanding that we would 16 l
use this weekend to get all of the discovery materials and form j
g I
ti 17 a list of those people we would like to depose and informally-1 w
=
{
18 contact both the Licensee and Staf f on Monday with that list and E
I 19 l
any of those persons, where there was disagreement, we would a
20 l
then put those requests in writing to be received by Tuesday.
I 21 j.
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Mr. Chairman, that may be an accurate 22 i
summary of discussions with the Staff.
I don' t think our discus-O 23,
sions included that -- any of the details such as Monday or --
l 24 l
we have no discovery request today, which is the deadline for
' O 25,
everything except follow-on discovery from TMIA.
We have no I
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1
,., ~
- - -.-_~
l 23,409 1
i I
deposition request.
~
2 MS. BRADFORD:
I understand that these --
I 3l MR. TROWBRIDGE:
And I don't rule out the possibility i
I 4
that there will be a deposition request as a follow-on item.
When I
e 5
we come to talk about follow-on items, we mean follow-on.
We 6
mean an identification of the response which gave rise to the R
2 7
request and a reasonable showing that the response requires this s
i j
8 further piece of discovery.
rJ d
9 MS. BRADFORD:
That was not my understanding.
d l
10 JUDGE MILilOLLIN:
Your understanding was?
E MS. BRADFORD:
That it would be in the nature of follow-
{
11 is 4
d 12 on.
E:
g 13 JUDGE MILilOLLIN:
All right.
Do you now have any 4
l
=
h 14 prediction as to how many persons you may wish to depose?
?.,
15 MS. BRADFORD:
I really don't and I will not know until 5
16 we have gone over the materials.
j g
t[
17 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
All righ'..
w M
18
=H" i
19 8"
i 20 j
l 21 j
t I
O 23 i
24 iO 25 a; i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4 23,410
/
sc 1 tp 7 l
I take it that the Licensee -- well, perhaps I should 1
(
2 ask.
Does the Licensee object to having these people deposed 3 i between now and October 26, assuming that proper adherence is 4
achieved concerning NRC rules of practice?
(}
I g
5 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Let me put this in -- I have to do it Q
6 in a "for instance."
Let's assume that next Wednesday we are
~
for the first time advised of the names of the individuals that n
R 7
!8 are supposed to be scheduled for deposition and the subject matter J
=
9 on which they will be deposed.
I E
10 That's unreasonable.
That kind of scheduling may_not 2
It's one thing for the Annodts to say there are
{
11 be possible.
y 12 only six people as an initial bite that they might want to talk
~
been told who the six people are, much less when
=
13 to.
We haven't
[
14 they're supposed to be where.
E E
15 JUDGE MILHOLLID:
If you were supplied with the names x
y 16 of the people whom the Aamodts wish to depose today, we could v.
p 17 still take the position that that is an unreasonable schedule.
18 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Six people?
The names of the people, 5
E 19 the times they're supposed to be there?
- n Well, presumably if the names are I
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
20 l
21 supplied to you, the time and place can be negotiated.
22 l
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I think it's fair to say that there J
23,
was a representation that further discovery requests would be l
expeditiously handled by the Licensee if they were to come up 24 O-At least that's my recollection of our previous 25 p at this session.
e I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
23,411 cc 2 l
, conversation on this point.
And that was one of the reasons why 1
)
ilweagreedtothescheduleweagreedto,asIremember.
()
2 3
MR. TROUBRIDGE:
I think in answer,.Tudge Milho11in, 4
if we knew today who we were talking about, the schedules could e
5 be arranged, making sure that -- as I understand it, the Ae 6
Aamodts would elect to have these depositions in the evening.
R 2,
7 That is not a matter of objection to us.
But we would certainly A
' have to arrange that they not be on shift that period or b'e j
8 O
d 9
replaced or whatever it is, and they do have some obligation.
i Og 10 We would try very hard if it were down to six indi-3 l
-g 11 viduals.
5 l
- j 12 JUDGE MILilOLLIll:
The accelerated nature of thesc
=
4 m
g 13 proceedings nakes it necessary to have a rather tight schedule
?
g 14 on decisionmaking by parties involved in discovery.
The normal 2
15 process of discovery will allow for considerably more time to 5
y 16 make decisions.
2 l
d 17 The reason for the accelerated pace of this proceeding 5
E 18 is to provide as soon as possible a record for the purpose of 5
19 deciding upon restart.
So the alternative to doing things n
20 rapidly is doing them more slowly.
21 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Hell, there is no longer another 7
)
22 l
alternative.
There was an alternative, I would remind the 23 Special Master.
It was to have had these deposition requests q
I 24 l
about two weeks ago that would have allowed a much moro reasonable 25 piece of scheduling on our part.
ALDERGON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
se 3 l
23,412 l
I 1
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I'm aware of that.
2 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
And somehow to produce the -- and even 3
the -- to produce the ATTS individuals, that's not something we I
()
4 can command, and to find out, if we can, who the proctor was e
5 on the May '79 -- one of, I'm sure, hundreds, maybe thousands Ae 3
6 of RWP tests -- to find out if he's on the payroll and produce
^uM 7
him, that's not something we welcome at the last monent.
E 8
But it is entirely correct that we will do everything 0o 9
we can to expedite discovery.
It's a little galling to get it
'd E
10 at this time.
E
=
g 11 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Well, everyone has ocen asked to W
y 12 do things which are not habitual, and I'm afraid it's going to i
13 be your turn, because it's hard for me to say that a request
/}
h 14 for discovery -- I'm sorry -- a request for deposition for E
E 15 someone who's obviously relevant and can give inportant informa-16 tion should be denied simply because of an accelerated schedule.
g e
p 17 And if I'm placed in the position of having to decide 5
18 one way or the other, I'm going to have to decide that the E
19 depositions should be allowed; so I'n encouraging you to facilitate a
f this to the ma::imum degree possible.
20 21 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
On the condition that we are 22 l
notified today of the individuals.
23,
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
It may not be possible for THIA to 24 notify you today of the individuals, but I take it they're going 25 i to make a good faith effort as early next week as possible.
~
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 23,413 sc 4 1
MS. BRADFORD:
That's right.
C1.
2 MR. TROUBRIDGE:
Aamodts is not follow-on discovery.
4 3'
This is the day for discovery requests.
4 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Perhaps we could hear from the
()
e 5
Aamodts at this time.
En We are currently in the process still of j
6 MR. CLEUETT:
R As R.
7 determining who would be the best few individuals to depose.
5-j 8
you know, a large quantity of materials arrived less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> d
If it would facilitate matters, we could certainly attempt d
9 ago.
~i at this point, at some point today to give at least some of those h
10
~z E
11 individuals that we would like to depose.
It would, I should M
d 12 think, facilitate the process to indicate some of those indi-x_
f~)T h
13 viduals today and the rencinder early next week.
y u
l.4 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Shall we say in the morning of Monday 2
15 of next week?
z=
g' 16 MS. BRADFORD:
Judge Milhollin, while we have a monent 7:
p 17 can I ask for a clarification from the Licensee, because it,s
- =
5 18 my understanding -- and I just jotted down these three requests I:
i of the Aamodts very quickly -- and it would seem only the first
[
19
-n is not follow-or the proctor in charge of the catalytic test, 20j one, 21 as I understand follow-on request.
22 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
I think we'd better have a little
{'.}
23 better definition of " follow-on."
Follow-on is essentially a x
24 j
question which could not reasonably have been asked initially e,
N,]
4 25 jj and is. called for by a discovery response.
I!
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
il
sc 5 i
1 MS. BRADFORD:
The examinees, the SRO and RO examinees,
()
that request might very well coincide with TMIA's and would be 2
j 3
as a result of our going through those tests and choosing those 4
individuals who were just identified in their letter designations,
{}
e 5
and that was my understanding of follow-on.
It seems that's where A
N d
6 we've had our disagreement.
e 1
N 8
7 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I see.
Your position would be E
8
' hat follow-on would mean the process of identifying individuals N
O d
9 v.a were likely to have cheated based on a review of the examina-Y E
10 tions.
E E
11 MS. BRADFORD:
Yes.
d 12 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Which you just received?
$c d
13 MS. B RADFORD :
Right.
(w) a
(_
E 14 MR. TROUBRIDGE:
"Just received" is not a very accurate w
E 15 response.
Many of these --
E
.. ~
16 MR. CLEWETT:
Mcr is it very inaccurate.
M d
17 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Many of these exams were supplied E
18 on October 2nd, a large quantity; I believe all of the Kelly exams l
5 E
19 including Category T.
The ATTS exams and the category T makeups i
A 20 l were all supplied on October 2.
l JUDGE MILHOLLIN: 'Which exams were furnished?
21 i
i l
22 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
The exams that they have gotten only O
2,9 the last few days were the non-Category T Kelly makeups.
These i
24 l
took a lot of searching and assembling.
k^
I MS. BRADFORD:
I understand we also received fron the 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
~
sc 6 I
23,415 l
l I
! NRC the -- as I said, I haven't looked through that package yet --
.2 but those tests where the original cheating was discovered.
I I
3 I think that that's correct.
Thos2 are received today.
()
4 MS. SWARTZ:
That is correct.
Those are the ones we g
5 filed on Wednesday.
O 0
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
My question to Mr. Clowett is still d
R*S 7
pending; that is, when can we be confident that the Licensee will 4
2 g
8 bc notified of the identities of the examinees whom you wish to 0"
9
~.
depose?
3 10 MR. CLEWETT:
I'm sorry for not responding promptly.
E k
II There were a number of different interruptions which seemed to u
j 12 take the floor.
=
13 Our position would be that we could identify sone of
[}
z I4 those today or now, I suppose, if that would facili tate things,
u 15 and could identify the remainder at such time as the Special
]
Master prefers.
16 v:
37 It would seem in principle that there would not be t
3 18 any prejudice to the Licensee even if depositions of some P
E 19 l individuals were taken after the beginning of the hearings.
And n
-f 20 '
to say that it is such a great burden on the Licensee to produce 21 these. people during the pendancy of the discovery period seems 22 rather peculiar.
.O 23 The problem that we face is attempting to identify j
24 i
who are the best people to interview.
We still do not have some
(/
\\
i 25 "f of the materials necessary to correlate which tests were given i
i i
1 I
i-1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4
l 23,416 I
l 1
/~%
at the same time.
And in any event, there is a large bulk of 2
~
material that needs to be sifted through.
And it would seem 3
reasonable to us if the remainder of the identification of the I) 4 individuals that we would like to speak to could be given some e
5 6
time in the first half of next week, for example, and I would N
6 h
hope that the Licensee could be able to be made to see the light 8
7 j
that with its fast resources it could accommodate us.
E 8
]
As I say, we are prepared now to indicate some of 6
9 g
the individuals that we would like to speak with.
10 3
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Why don't you do that now?
11 j
3 MR. CLEUETT:
All right.
One of those individuals d
12 z
would be the individual designated by the letter C.
Another
=
Ot d
13
~
E such individual would be the individual designated by the letter 14 g
I.
Another such individual would be Mr.
E.E.,
and another such 2
15 5
individual would be Mr.
P.P.
y 16 v.
MR. TROUBRIDGE:
Double T?
d 17 y
MR. CLEUETT:
Double P as in Paul.
18 5
I should perhaps add that -- I ' n. so r ry.
I have E
19 A
misspoken here.
Instead of C and PP, I should have said P and 20 CC.
Mr. P as in Peter and Mr. CC as in the third letter of the 2i alphabet; Mr. I and Mr. EE.
22 p\\_/
I should also note that we did not bring up at this 23,d point, because we were focusing on people who were more directly 24
()
' associated with the Licensee at this point, we would also like 25i f
to depose Mr. O and Mr. P, the two individuals known to have ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 23,417 i
l l
1 cheated.
This could well require a subpoena to produce these 2
1 3
individuals.
Perhaps it would be useful to mention to the 4
Special Master at this point that we would also like to interview e
5 these individuals.
s N
N 6
JUDGE MILIIOLLIN:
Do you think you could supply by e
N s_
7 noon on Tuesday the other names?
'n
,8 8
MR. AAMODT:
We can by noon on Tuesday probably.
We d
=
9 would just not like to waste anybody's time, and by Tuesday I Q
10 expect that we will be convinced of a couple more.
That's the 4
g 11 best I can say.
And if we are, we will give you two or more B:
y 12 names at that time -- that is, letters.
~=
p j
13 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Are we going to get also a reading v
=
{
14 from the regulation, the statement of the matters upon which 4
2 15 each person is to be deposed?
5 16 MR. CLEUETT:
Yes.
..$s 17 MR. TROUDRIDGE:
I don't know what the Special Master j
l 18 will do about O and U.
They're the terminated employees.
=H[
19 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Perhaps it would be useful for us y
20 J to discuss thatquestion.
It'= likely that that is going to come 21 up sooner or later.
22 Would the Licensee be in a position to facilitate the O
a 23 identification of the addresses of those individuals or to 1
24 j
contact them in any way?
O 25j!
MR. TROUBRIDGE:
Hell, they could be contacted through t
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
23,418 their counsel.
O 3uoo8 " '"ot"=
re ve - ehee true-
=1 voxe-2 Sin e they are represented by counsel, then the proper avenue 3
for contacting them would be through their counsel.
p 4
v MR. CLEUETT:
May I inquire as to which of the two 5
e 2
counsel who appeared the other day is the attorney for each of 0
E those, since they represented a total of three individuals?
y 7
i MR. TROWBRIDGE:
At the moment we don't see a problem 8
9 with it.
Ue'd like a few more minutes to see whether -- we'll 9
i 10 get togethe r with Mr. Clewett and see if we can accommodate him.
i E
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I think you can count on the Licensee j
jj 2
[-
to supply you witn that information.
12 3
MR. CLEUETT:
Thank you.
13 7
S JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Are there any other matters concerninc g
g 5
dis v ry which affects the Licensee?
15 E
MR. TROUBRIDGE:
Hell, we have not talked about follow-c n
~.
16 E
discovery, but I would suggest we go to the Staff now and see j7 a
- any, utstanding disagreements there are on present f
18
=
discovery requests.
g E
e JUDGE MIMO EIN:
Ve q well.
20 l MS. SUARTZ:
What you're being handed is a copy of g
the Aamodts' interrogatories.
It's entitled, " Additional 22 i
Interrogatories--Staff and Licensee."
I don't know if these 23,
are identical to the ones that were given to the Licensee or not, 24 j
)
but they are ones that were handed to us.
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 23,419 1
Our objection is to the first interrogatory.
(-)
(/
2 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
We'll date these October 16, 1981, and could you please restate what:Jyou just said?
3 4
MS. SWARTZ:
Ue object to Interrogatory No.
1.
The
( ))
reason for that is we don't believe it is relevant to the issues e
5 E
N N
6 in this proceeding.
e Nji 7
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Perhaps it would be a good thing to
.!8 read it into the record.
d d
9 MS. SWARTZ:
All right.
Interrogatory No. 1 says:
N g
10 "Please answer the following questions relative to the June 28 x
E 11 NRC Staff meeting summary regarding TMI-l restart cited on page d
12 18 of the Commission's August 9, 1979 order.
Subparagraph A:
3=
(~)/
j 13 Give basis for argument" -- I'n sorry -
"for agreement to provido x_
mj 14 40 licensed RO and SRO operator personnel as a minimum complement 2
15 fo r TMI-1.
Subparagraph B:
Give basis for agreement to augment E
16 licensed operator training to include college-level courses in
.s
'A g
17 thermodynamics, fluid flow, etc.
Subparagraph C:
To what extent 5
18 was Licensee bound by this agreement?"
Y{
19 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Is No. 1 the only interrogatory in E
20 l controversy?
21 MS. SWARTZ:
Yes, it is.
r~g 22 While we realize that Issue 11 goes to the adequacy V
23,
of staffing at TMI-1, given the potential impact of the NRC 24 i
exams and personnel that have left, we don't believe that
[D x/
c 25 1, reference in the August 9th order to a number of operators that --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
23,420 1
I don' t know what was in the August 9th order.
I don' t know what b'
2 the specific paragraph relates to.
But what was discussed at that 3
time -- 40 operators -- I don' t know if that still applies, and
()
4 I don't believe it has any relation to whether there will be e
5 adequate staffing at TMI-1 given the events that occurred after h
6 the cheating incident in the April '01 exams.
^mjf 7
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I have to ask you to perhaps make that "n
j 8
argument in different words.
It was difficult for me to follow d
c 9
it.
i E
10 i
MS. SWARTZ:
I am not clear exactly what they're referri ng 2=
g 11 to in the August 9 th order.
I don't have a copy of the order a
j 12 with me.
If I did, perhaps I would understand their interrogatory
=
[/')
h 13 better.
As it stands now, just reading the interrogatory I x_
yj 14 don' t understand what relevance -- I don' t believe there is 5
15 any relevance for a possible agreement to have 40 operators ji s
J 16 to man TMI-l -- what relevsuce that has to the current discussion d
17 of whether there will be adequate staffing at TMI-1 given the 5
7 18 problems they have had after the April URC licensing examination.
H[
19 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Okay.
So your point is that sub-M 20 paragraph A is not related to the scope of the reopened proceeding 21 because it seems to be independent of the effect of the examina-(~}
22 tion on the staffing which is available.
v 23,
MS. SWARTZ:
Exactly.
And I would usa the same 24 l argument for B and C.
B has another argument, because that
- (')
\\_/
25l3 would seem to go to the competency of the : operators, wlach is not 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
23,421 l
1 a subject to be litigated in this reopened proceeding.
2 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
B reters to the basis for the agreement 3
to increase --
4 MS. SWARTZ:
To augment licensed operator training
()
e 5
to include college-level courses in thermodynamics, fluid flow, E9 3
6 et cetera, e
N 8,
7 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
All right.
And.the third is?
7.
8 8
MS. SUARTZ:
The third is to what extent was Licensee n
N bound by this agreement, and we would consider that to be not 9
i E
10 relevant to the same extent A and B are not relevant to the issues E
E 11 in this proceeding.
<M j
12 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Mr. Special Master, you should be 5
(~}
l 13 aware that identical questions were posed to Licensee.
We chose
=
{
14 not to' object to the questions.
By that we did not mean and 5
2 15 do not now mean that we would necessarily accept testimony or 5
y 16 not object to testimony or to the relevance of testimony.
v:
6 17 It was a simple action on our part.
It's easier to 5
18 answer the interrogatory than take the time to argue it.
But I
=
would -- and I'm not changing our position, but nevertheless, I 19 n
20 would suggest that if the Special Master rules on this, that 21 he include interrogatories to both parties.
22 t.-
23 24 i
25 j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
9:1: mas
[
23,422 l
i l
1 i
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Are you basing your objection on the l
~(,g
/
2 j position that this would be burdensome to supply?
3 MS. SWARTZ: Not having the August 9 order in front of 2
4 me and not knowing what this is in reference to I couldn't'even g
5 l answer that question.
I'm not basing my objection on that.
N 6
I am basing it on the relevance.
I don' t know what it
- R E
7 l would involve to answer the question.
Ej 8
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Mr. Clewett, do you care to respond to d
d 9
that objection?
Mr. Aamodt?
Y 10 MR. AAMODT: Yes, sir.
The Staff meeting summary of M
f-11 June 28 reported on a meeting between the Licensee and the Staff,
~s j
j 12 obviously shortly after the accident, where for some basis of
>Q g-g 13,
which we are not aware we were only given the summary.
(_-
h 14 Both agreed, apparently not under any duress, that you 2
15 need 40 licensed operators to run that plant and that if they E
16 were going to run it effectively they had to be trained in collego-j i.
d 17 level courses.
5 E
18 Admittely this issue of adequacy of training had its
=H; 19 chance for litigation earlier.
What we are concerned about is thi s A
i 20 l kind of hypothetical question:
could the Licensee be saying to 21 itself we just don't dare run this plant if we have fewer than 22 l
X number of people?
In view of the fact that, as you will see in (O
_)
23, our request for additional issues, there is a reasonable body of 1
24 i
opinion that believes that the NRC licensing examinations are not I) b 25 f relevant to an individual's ability to sperate the plant, the p
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
9:2 l
23,423 i
i l
1 Licensee might very well have an attitude that says we're going 2
l to get these fellows through.
We need so many people.
We think, 3
therefore, these questions are relevant.
4 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I agree with the Staff's objection e
5 that the connection between this agreement, if it exists, or the E9 3
6 basis of it, or the extent to which it was binding, is not G
7 connected to cheating and I also believe that -- well, I should sj 8
say an additional ground for my decision is that the number of d
d 9
operators required and their level of qualifications was 5
10 extensively litigated by the Licensing Board. I think it would h
11 be relevant to this proceeding, perhaps, to inquire into the a
f_
12 ef fcet cheating on examinations would have on any conclusions the C]/
9 13 Licensing Board drew, but I don't see how cheating is related to m
z 14 their conclusions on these questions.
{
15 So I am going to sustain the objection on the ground
=
g' 16 that it's not relevant.
M
^
b 17 n MR. TROWB RIDGE:
Did you include Licensee in that 5
f M
18 l
ruling, Mr. Chairman?
=
19 (Laughter.)
g 20 l
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I think the Licensee can succeed in 21 riding on the coattails of the Staff and be excused from respond-6
()
22 l ing to this request, although -- well, I think I'll stop there.
23,
We have a number of things to do this evening,' one of r
24 l
which -- well, I have some things on my list to talk to you
' (}
25 h about in addition to those you have talked about.
Why don't we E
i d
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
9:3 23,424 1
go ahead and take your first?
p 2
i I take it the next item on the agenda is follow-on
~
3 discovery.
[)
N' 4
MR. BLAKE:
Judge Milhollin, Mr. Trowbridge does the 5
objection and I announce agreements.
e E9 j
6 With respect to follow-on discovery, the parties have R
7 reached an agreement on a schedule and we hope that you will Ej 8
accept it.
Od 9
Our agreement is that with respect to discovery requeste z'e 10 which have been received by today responses to those discovery
^
3
(
11 requests are due by October 26, which has been the date all along, a
p 12 generally, for the completion of discovery.
E I'T d
13 With respect to follow-on discovery requests -- and I
's_/
E zg 14 mean by that clearly identified and tied back to a response, and
{
15 I don' t think there 's a disagreement at this point -- we have
=
16 talked to the other parties about it and I think there is a clear
]
7:
d 17 understanding of what is meant by " follow-on".
Such follow-on 5
k 18 discovery request could be made and would not be met with an 5
3 19 objection as to their time limits by next Thursday, October 22.
R 20 I mean by that that any tollow-on discovery request l
21 l
would be made by the end of the work day on October 22 in writing 22 I
and received by the party from whom the discovery was being
(-)/
sm 23 sought.
Responses to follow-on discovery request would be due in 24 l
the hands of.the requesting party by October 28.
25)
JUDGE MIL 3OLLIN: Do you anticipate that some of those i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
9:4 l
23,425 1
follow-on requests would be directed to the Licensee?
}
I 2
MR. BLAKE:
I unfortunctely anticipate most of them.
3 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Do you expect that any of them will (3
4 be directed to the Intervenors?
e 5
MR. BLAKE:
There is a possibility but I don' t know.
En 6
I can't speak for the Staff, but from Licensee's standpoint if R
8 7
there are any I would expect them to be minimal.
s 8
8 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
All right, n
d
=
9 I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
i Cy 10 MR. BLAKE:
I jus t have one other thing which, if the
{
- )
Special Master will agree -- this has been agreed to by the a
j 12 parties -- that I would ask you to instruct or direct the parties E
()
13 that as the need for follow-on discovery becomes apparent to j
14 any party tnat that party undertake promptly to alert the party E
15 of whom the discovery will be made and provide the discovery 5
y 16 request and not wait until the final day of this opportunity for 2
1 d
17 follow-on discovery -- that, is October 22 -- and that you l
5 M
18 obligate each of us to undertake that.
E
{
19 I guess I would ask whether: or not I correctly stated 1
f our agreement on follow-on discovery and get the consurrence of 20 21 the parties.
N 22 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Do all parties agree that that's the
(_)
23 understanding of the parties?
24 MR. CLEWETT:
The only question, as I understand it, 25 l
was whether there had been agreement that follow-on discovery l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
9:5 23,426 I
I i
would need to be in writing by Thursday.
(
l 2 j MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Could we have a moment?
I 3
(Pause.)
()
4 MR. CLEWETT:
The question being merely one of time and e
5 if a simple follow-on request can be made by telephone, that EN 6
would elitainate the need to have decided on follow-on discovery 9
7 by two days before that.
j 8
If, on the other hand, Licensee would be prepared to ao 9
send a messenger to pick up such follow-on discovery on Thursday, Y
10 that would be a different matter.
E i
h 11 MR. BLAKE:
I didn't mean, at least speaking for the
?
p}
12 Licensea now -- I did not mean to exclude the possibility between
=
()
13 now and next Thursday that follow-on discovery requests between z
5 14 any of the parties might very well promptly be made by telephone E
15 or formal means and the response be given, but I did mean that
=
g' 16 with respect to follow-on discovery requests and the deadline i
d 17 for tho.
that such requests would be made by Thursday, October 22 6_
M 18 And to the extent that they are not: agreed upon informally or 5
{
19 l
orally that they be made available at that point in writing, n
20 l quite frankly so that we may have something in front of us to 21 talk with you about.
f'J) 22 I
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Mr. Clewett?
l 23 MR. CLEWETT:
I would just reiterate the practical
-)
24 [i effect of requiring the follow-on discovery to be in writing by
(\\_)
b 25 i that date, which would necessitate mailing it perhaps two days i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1
[
23,427 1
before.
I would imagine that --
1 x.
2 l
MR. BLAKE:
Mr. Clewett, let me take care of that and i
3 I will cure it for you.
We have not had a problem with exciianging (m.)
4 documents to this point.
To the extent that you have fol.'ow-on s
5 written requests at your office in Washington we will send a
- j 6
messenger from our office to yours to pick them up on Thursday.
R R
7 To the extent that they are available in this area, Licensee will s
attempt to have them picked up on that day.
With arrangements, j
j 8
d d
9 as before, we have not had a problem in that respect and I don't Y
10 anticipate that here.
E h
11 MR. CLEWETT:
Thank you, Mr. Blake.
That sounds like i
j 12 a very reasonable approach on your part.
=
13 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
So the schedule is as the Licensee
)
14 has stated it and the parties all agree to the schedule?
E 15 MS. SWARTZ:
We agree to the schedule.
The Staff 5
16 would just note that although we can't send a messenger to Mr.
g i
d 17 Clewett's office to pick up the request, as long as we have 5
18 everything you want from us orally by Thursday and that's fine
=H
{
19 wi th us, and written sometime, but not necessarily Thursday.
5 l
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
So that eliminates item two on our 20 21 agenda -- follow-on discovery.
22 Item three is the Aamodts' motions, of which there are
~23 two.
With respect to the first motion I have a comment.
24 With respect to the last page --
/~h it
(
25f MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Which is the first one?
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~
23,428 i
1 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I'm sorry.
With respect to the O
V motion entitled -- with respect to the motion having to do with 2
3 the reopened hearings -- I'm sorry, the motion having to do with O
4 postponing the licensing examination.
I have a comment with e
5 respect to the last paragraph of that motion.
En j
6 I think language such as that is unnecessary and I 9
8 7
think it hurts your cr.3e, Mr. Clewett, more than it helps it, and i
j 8
I think that if it continues it is going to produce a feeling of 0d 9
resentment in me, which you will deserve.
So I'm not asking for Y
10 any response from you to that statement. I am simply informing B_
j 11 you of my attitude and with the hope that I won't have to say
?
l j
12 anything else along this line.
=
f~D 13 MR. CLEWETT:
Thank you for clarifying your feelings, b.
14 Judge Milhollin.
$f 15 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Well, now we take up the substance E
I y
16 of the motion.
Do you have comments about the substance of the e
d 17 motion which you would like to add to it or not?
5_
18 MR. CLEWETT:
May I have one moment to confer before
=H
{
19 responding?
n 20 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
'Yes.
21 (Pause.)
s 22 MR. CLEWETT:
I would only say that given the f act that
]
23,
the adequacy of the Staff's plan for retesting -- given the fact 24 i
that that is one of the specific issues that the Board included
%./
25 in these hearings, it seems inappropriate to allow those to go l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
23,429 1
forward before that issue can be properly resolved.
(")
l
\\J 2
l Beyond that I would not have any further comments on i
3 this motion at this time.
r~
k_s) 4 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I assume that you are planning to 5
resubmit this motion in written form so that the record will D.
j 6
contain it along with the ruling on it?
R l
7 MR. CLEWETT:
Yes, I am planning on having this t' ped N
j 8
or typing it myself and resubritting it, Judge Milhollen.
O d
9 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Fine.
Y 10 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Mr. Special Master, wit' respect to E
h 11 both these motions, before discussing the substance or merits of a
p 12 it, I would suggest we approach a threshold question, namely, is
=
13 either motion properly filed with the Special Master?
(~N
'w]
z 5
14 As to postponing NRC licensing examinations, I did not 15 regard that as within the jurisdiction of the Licensing Board or g'
16 the Special Master.
It is obviously something the Commission i
17 could do.
In fact, Mr. Clewett made the suggestion to the h
18 Commission at the session on Wednesday when we were asked to make
=>
{
19 oral presentations on the immediate effectiveness issue.
M 20 i
I do not think that one could say -- Mr. Clewett can 21 speak,for himself -- but I did not personally regard that suggestior i
22 l
as a formal request to the Commission to do anything at the time, f)-
s N._
23 but that's where such a requ'-t belongs and not before the Specia l 24 i
Master.
25 l Similarly, speaking to the motion to add additional
=
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 23,430 1
issues, that is a subject which could be addressed to the Licensing 2
Board, but the Licensing Board in its early issuances on the 3
reopened hearing made it clear that the Licensing Board would O
4 decide the issues in this case.
g 5
We had a proceeding in which the Board presided to do 9
j 6
just that.
It gave the Special Master a great deal of flexibility R
7 in fashioning the ground rules and determining the evidence s
j 8
appropriate to those issues, but nevertheless the Board esablished G
d 9
the issues and thch's where this motion belongs, more particularly 5
10 in that several aspects of the motion -- for example, item 2, E
h 11 but there are others -- the motion asks the Special Master in
?
N 12 effect to reconsider and overrule the decisions that have already
=
()
13 been made by the Board as to the scope of the hearing.
f z
5 14 So without getting further into discussion I would 5
i f
15 think that should be a threshold question.
E y
16 MS. SWARTZ :
It is the Staff's position that the s:
(
17 Special Master and Board lack the jurisdiction to tell the Staff E
M 18 when it should give its oral examinations or when it should give P
{
19 its reexaminations.
5 20 Section 2.722, which is the section that the Special 21 Master was appointed under, appears to confer on a Special Master n
l only the authority to rule on evidentiary matters and it is
(( )
22 23 apparent to the Staff, anyway, that from the Board's September ll,
24 I believe, order which set up, appointed the special Master, that 25 the-Board contemplated that only evidentiary rulings would be 1
i ALDERSON REPORTIN 3 COMPANY,INC.
23,431 1
made.
2 In addition, we don't think the Board has the jurisdic-3j tion to direct the Staff in the administration of its responsi-
/C 4
bilities.
We argued this point in a footnote in our brief to e
5 the Board on the 15th of September, saying that under Part 55 of N
j 6
the Commission's regulations it was a duty of the Commission to E
7 administer licensing examinations and that the Commission had
,y g
8 delegated its authority to the Staff, and we cite the appropriate 0
9 pr vision in the NRC manual for that delegation of authority.
?
E 10 With respect to the Aamodts' motion to postpone these
${
11 examinations we would just argue that the motion is in the wrong B
l 12 fo rum.
()
13 MR. ADLER:
On the question of jurisdiction the practical z
5 14 question, however, appears to be more important to us.
The E
15 examinations are scheduled for next week.
In terms of the E
g' 16 substance of our argument, we don't view there being any difference.
i d
17 Our substantive argumenc would be to oppose the motion on the 5
5 18 basis that both the Staff and the Licensee essentially are 5
{
19 proceeding at their own risk.
M 20 l The Special Master, as appraised by the Licensing 21 panel, will have the authority to rule on the retesting procedures
(}
used by the Staff and the adequacy of the recesting and it is 22 23 possible that the ruling of the Special Master and the Board will 24 l
rendc the retesting invalid.
f3 L.)
25 We would expect that both the Special Master and the ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,INC.
22,432 l
1 Board would not be biased in any way by the fact that the i )s
\\
2 retesting had already occurred in making their rulings and that 3
there would be the possibility of yet another retesting should O
4 the Board and the Special Master rule that the current procedures e
5 are inadequate.
N j
6 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
By virtue of having received this this R
5 7
morling I was able to reflect upon it during the time when we E
j 8
were adjourned.
I am prepared to rule.
O d
9 My ruling is that the motion is denied because, essentially 35 10 o f the argument which the Commonwealth makes, that is, that the 3
11 adequacy of this retestirg procedure is an issue at controversy j
M
- j 12 and will be part of the decision of the Special proceeding.
r>
5 R
',,).
(
13 So I believe the Licensee and the Staff are entitled to 14 proceed at their own risk to give this examination and its E
15 adequacy will simply be a matter of controversy.
=
16 Since it is possible to dispose of the argument on that
]
7:
d 17 ground, I don't think it is necessary to reach the question of 18 wehther under other circumstances either the Licensing Board or
=
5 19 myself will have the power to affect the examination by a ruling.
g M
20 MS. SWARTZ:
Excuse me.
Could you just clarify one thiag?
21 I understood what you just said to be that it is one of the
- ()
22 responsibilities of the Special Master to look at the adequacy 23,
of the NRC retest and the oral examinations.
By that do you mean
(~T.
24 )
the adequacy of the procedures by which these tests are given?
\\_)
25 HUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Yes.
I thought we had been over that 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
23,433 I
several times.
- O 2
(Laughter.)
3 If there was a subject upon which no doubt remained I O-.
4 would have picked that one as the leading candidate.
e 5
With respect to the additional issues I'm not sure the 3
a.
j 6
parties really have addressed this in any depth.
Is it your j
7 disposition to do so now?
I am speaking now of the other moticn i
- j 8 I
-- the motion to add additional issues to the reopened hearing.
U i
9 MS. SWARTZ:
We are prepared to address the additional 10 I
issues.
3 11 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
Go ahead.
's y
12
=
O i
E 14 6
h:
2 15 x
16
- s. -
+
f.
ti 17 x
1 18
=
N 19 Er:
20 21 l
i 22 i
23 l
24 i
f O
a 25j 4
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
._L _..,._...__, _...._.,._, __ ~,_,..._..._.-.. _._
sc 18-99 1 23,434 1
MS. SWARTZ:
We would oppose most of this issue.
2 With respect to Issue 1, the integrity of the operators, 3
Issue 12 already covers the criteria and procedures for the O
4 certification of the candidates to the NRC with respect to the s
5 integrity of the operators.
6 It does not appear that the Aamodts have given any R
7 reason to go beyond this issue as it stands now.
They say that E
j 8
they have evaluated the mock exams which indicate pervasive d
d 9
cheating.
That gives us no evidence in hand.
It gives the d
10 Special Master no evidence in hand with which hc could rule z
t
=
g 11 that they are justified in expanding the scope of the issues, a
p 12 as the Licensing Board set forth two weeks ago, k
/~
E 13 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Is it your view that this language V)
E h
14 does expand the issues, or am I hearing you say that you think 2
15 these issues really are in the nature of subissues or issues of 5
y 16 fact or evidentiary issues which already fall within the scope d
17 of the proceeding?
5 5
18 MS. SWARTZ:
I believe the integrity of the operators
=H 19 is already -- the criteria and procedures the Licensee uses to 2
20 certify the integrity of the operators is already part of this 21 proceeding and is a proper part of this proceeding.
i I
22 Going to the attitude of the operators and how they v
23,
feel about being honest I think is outside the scope of the 3
24 ti proceeding, and that they have given no basis for going cutside
(~)/
II
\\"
s 25 ;j the scope.
They have given no specific facts which would justify a
ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
L
23,435 sc 2 going outside the scope of the proceeding as it exists now.
1
\\-'
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Could the attitude be evidence of 2
3 management's competence?
4 MS. SWARTZ:
It could be.
That could also be very e
5 tenuous.
E9 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Go ahead.
3 6
e R
S.
7 MS. SWARTZ:
With respect to Issue 2 on training, that s
was -- the adequacy of the Licensee's training progran was liti-j 8
d c
9 gated in the initial phase of the management proceeding and was Y
specifically rejected by the Board in their scope of the issues.
10 i
E The Aamodts have not brought forward any specific E
11
<M facts which would indicate that going into the training program g
12
-c k -)
d 13 again is necessary.
/'
5
{
14 With respect to subsection (b), comments by the ACRS, it appears that in that transcript the ACRS is merely having
-2 15 y
16 a discussion of this incident, and they were speculating as to v:
d 17 the causes, but they had no particular evidence that would 5
indicate that training should be re-examined.
M 18
~
P
{
19 Issue 3, the content of the NRC licensing examinations, n
20 J
again that was rejected by the Licensing Board.
They asked that -- or excuse me -- the Special Master has asked that the 21 mock and the actual examinations be compared, which would seem 22 b
to answer part of their concern that the licensing exams appear
%J 23 24 l
to be too close to the mock exams.
A comparison of that is
'~'
already anticipated for this hearing.
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
sc 3 l
23,436 1
With respect to Issue 4 --
i 2
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Before we leave Issue 3, is it your
^/
3 l position then that part of the subject matter referred to will 3s) 4 be covered by evidence at the hearing, and that part of it would e
5 have to do with administration, is that right?
N 6
MS. SWARTZ:
Correct.
e 5
7 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
And you object to the rest of it
-k8 because of all the reasons we have talked about for a considerable d
d 9
length of time, i
10 MS. SWARTZ:
Right.
I 11 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Okay.
MS. SWARTZ:
With respect to Issue 4, that's the part j
12
~T d
13 where we are not really objecting.
If the Aamodts do have (V
E y
14 evidence of this, we obviously do not want to.ausn it under the b
{
15 rug and ignore it, and it should be considered within the other
=
y 16 issues, as the Board suggested in the conference two weeks ago.
a d
17 That's all we have.
E M
18 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Special Master,
=
H
{
19 l since my earlier suggestion that was not adopted that we simply n
i 20 adopt a threshold question as to whether or not this was 21 properly addressed to the Special Master and are now discussing 22 the merits, I would now like to ask to add my comments on the s
'd 23 substance, as well as my -- to supplement my. earlier comments i
24
}
as to the propriety of the request being made to the Special
~
25 ll Master in the first instance.
t i
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
sc 4 23,437 I
l 1
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
You mean you want to make substantive C)
I comments with respect to the motion to postpone?
2 j 3
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Yes, I am.
My earlier remark was I 4
did not think this was a proper motion to the Special Master.
5 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Yes.
e E
N 6
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
But if the conversation is not going E
R 7
to stop -- and I suggested that could end any further discus-8 sion of this matter.
It hasn't.
O d
9 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
No, it hasn' t, and I'll have to admit i
10 that it's not likely to either.
E s
11 (Laughter.)
B d
12 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
In that case I would like to add my z3 13 further comments on the individual items in here.
{}
5 14 I have difficulty really answering the question that x
4 2
15 the Board asked:
attitude of plant operators as it relates to 5
y 16 honesty and integrity, to a sense of responsibility and to their 7:
p 17 on-the-job behavior.
E 18 To the extent that we're talking about sonething 5
E 19 having a nexus to cheating, that's much of what I thought this 5
l proceeding was about, this reopened hearing.
But I have to read 20 21 what is put there in the light of the bases suggested for it.
I 22 I
And if we 're going to get into attitude of plant operators
)
i 23,
based on the mad bomber whistle incident or the fact that 24 i several individuals, as stated
- that operators drank beer
(
J 25]
at the plant site, I have to now go back and reread the attitude i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 23,438 l
sc 5 l
1 of plant operators in the light of what example is given, and b
it's clearly, it seems to me, to go totally outside.the scope N'
2 i
l J
3 of this reopened proceeding and the nexus to the cheating incident (O
With respect to 2, I would repeat Ms. Swartz' comment.
.)
4 e
5 This is exactly the issue that was argued before the Licensing n
N h
6 Board, and nothing has changed.
The adequacy of the licensing N"
7 program was an additional issue which TMIA and the Aanodts sought N
E 8
to add.
N d
d 9
It was explained, as it is in relation to the comments i
Oy 10 by Mr. Plesset, it was explained in terms of an adequate treating, E
E 11 training to a need for propensity to cheat on examinations and
's 12 was rejected.
j E
Os_ j 13 The content of NRC licensing exam and mock exam and
=
A 14 aodel NRC exams, the Special Master may feel that this is the C=
2 15 one thing that ought to have been understood by everybody in E
y 16 the way of rulings to date, but it has not caught on with the M
d 17 Aamodts that the Board and the Special Master have tried to x
h 18 make it absolutely clear that the substantive value of the
=
H E
19 examinations is not an issue in this reopened proceeding, only x
20 j their administration.
21 Actually, I do not agree with the Staff that the 22 extent of cheating on nonlicensed examinations should now be i
23 the subject without the qualification:
let's get a threshold 24
{
showing of sufficient significant to warrant getting into non-b' 25 licensed examinations -- not necessarily all but some category i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l sc 6 23,439 1
1 of nonlicensed examinations.
t And I read this that the importance of this issue is l
)
2 3
reflected in the fact that testimony will be offered that at O
least in one such test scme examinees cheated using crit sheets 4
5 printed on a Met Ed letterhead.
e E
N N
6 This is an offer of testimony.
It is not proof, and e
7 it is not, as I indicated before, even an allegation that Met Ed E
8 management was in any way involved in this episode, n
dd 9
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
You're not objecting to the relevancy 5
E 10 of this, are you?
Are you objecting if it were offered in E=
g 11 evidence at an appropriate time and in an appropriate context?
E d
12 MR. TRONBRIDGE :
He have agreed as an issue in this x3
()
13 proceeding to go into the original allegation.
He will produce 14 a witness at the hearing to show cheating at TMI-l -- this doesn't
- u E
15 happen to be TMI-1, by the way; this is TMI-2 -- but leaving that E
.]
16 aside, it is ca issue, but it takes more than a declaration.
e d
17 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I understand.
E E
18 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
As to what is going to be proved.
=H E
19 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Mr. Clewett, you have not had ar.
XM i
the motion l Opportunity to speak in behalf of this second motion, 20 21 to add additional issues to the reopened hearing.
Would you 22 like to make any statements now?
23 24 4
25 4 0
i.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
r
l 23,440 12:1 mas l
1 MR. CLEWETT:
Mr. Aamodt would like to say a few words.
2 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
i 3
MR. AAMODT:
We agree, Judge Milhollin, with your earlier 7-V 4
implication that isn't this a management issue?
As an' example, s
5 if you have someone working for you who acts in an inappropriate e9j.
6 way, y u guard against that when you run an organization and we R
I 5
7 are suggesting that whed plant operators drink on the job, have l-
?
r g
8 had aberrant behavior of one sort or another, that management is d
0 9
delinquent if they let that kind of behavior persist.
?,
10 That kl.id of behavior is one which also could be 5
11 expected to lead to cheating.
People who aren't sensitive to the j
-s j
12 need to support their management are likely to cheat.
5
(_s) j 13 Then, with regard to Item 4, the real question here is
=
z 5
14 insofar as we -- it has been determined that two licensed operators cheated, the question 6f necessity, broadened to determine how 15 16 mucc was this an isolated case, if it was, management could not g"
e b~
17 be judged as harshly as if it were a gervasive kind of thing.
5 M
18 In the same way with nonlicensed' personnel, if there f
P{
19 is a single case of cheating, that is of interest.
E 20 l
But on the other hand, if it is pervasive it is very 21 serious and for that reason we feel that we should be allowed, if
(}
22
. in the event the testimony we present demonstrates that indeed 23 there was this single case, then we feel that we should be em 24 allowed to proceed further to determine whether or not it was
.tQ.]
25l!
a case that stood on its own or-if it was a case that was indi-l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 23,441 i
i, I
I cative of a management deficiency.
p/
g
\\_
2 With regard to Item 2, and specifically (b), the 3
adequacy of Licensee's training program, again here we are not 4
talking about the substance in this one at all.
What we are s
5 asking is whether or not the fact that they cheated doesn't cast e9 6,
new light on earlier assessments or earlier mechanisms for E
l 7
determining that indeed the candidates were adequately trained v
t g
8 before the sat for their exams.
And we felt it very important i
G 9
that the members of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, x0 G
10 w:,o are an advisory committee, because they obviously are a little 5
j 11 better able to know the importance of various kinds of events, S
j j
12 when they sit down and wonder
-- and even if they only wonder --
m E
y 13 about whether or not they had to cheat, if that isn't a
=
z 5
14 sufficiently important question we should pursue.
{
15 I am certainly willing to concede on Item 3 that there z
.]
16 was a question about which we have no doubt, but I just did want i
d 17 to raise it anyhow from the point of view just that this will 5
7 18 raica the question and I thought perhaps that might -- there so g
might be some sense to bring it up since they said that.
19 n
20 I'm not expecting very strongly that you would go along 21 with it.
1
()
22 (Laughter.)
?
23 ;
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Judge Milhollin, may I comment that i
24 as to Item 4, as I understood Mr. Aamodt to say, that if they
(}
25i demonstrate their case he thi nks they ought to go on to additiona l I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
23,442 L
i 1
cheating.
2 You don't need to revive the issues as presently stat'ed 3
which allows the Special Master in his discretion to go into 4
non-licensed examinations to the extent he thinks a threshold 5
case has been made which demonstrates that neceseity and I see g
4 j
6 no reason to change issue 1 es presently -- as we understood it 7
to be restated by the Licensirtg Board, as we expect to see it E
l
[
8 shortly in an order from the Licensing Bohrd.
d d
9 MR. ADLER:
Judge Milhollin, at last, though I seem to d
5 10 have been beaten to the punch in most of my arguments, I do have 11 a few additional comments. With.es,rd to the question of attitude
^$
N 12 I would point out that a large numbee of operators will be put O55 13 on the stand at the Special Master's request and I believe that z
5 14 the Master will have the opportunity to view the attitude of E
R 15 these operators.
E g
We would view questions as to the attitude of the 16 W.
b' l'7 operators regarding their examinations and their duty to deal with 5
M 18 the examinations honestly as being fairly within the purview of 5
y 19 the scope of the hearing.
n 1
20 l
We agree that both issues 2 and 3 have been adequately 21 addressed.
Issue 4, I believe the Commonwealth, during'the last
()
22 pre-hearing conference, expressed'its support for the threshold 23 ;
concept and the right of the Intervenors to +esent their intial i
24 l
evidence on this issue.
25 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
This is another instance in which I i
)
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 23,443 1
i will rule from the bench.
[}~
2l I think my -- well, with respect to number 2 I believe 3
thatthatisbuehasbeenadequatelylitigated. It is conceivable i
4 that there might be a threshold shown which could link cheating e
5 to the training program, but I am unable to imagine what it would E
4 n
,{
6 be at this time.
G 5
7 perhaps I should say that with respect to all these D
i j
g.
8 suggestions I have the authority to, at the hearing, accept J
d 9
evidence which is accompanied by a threshold showing and bring y
10 that evidence under the general issue.
M 3
11 With respect to number 4, for example, that, in my a
p 12 view, is in a sense an offer of testimony and the question concera-5
{;
ing that particular item is how important is it and what effect 13 zg 14 will it have on the overall record.
I don't think anything is
{
15 gained by changing the language of the present formulation _ of x.'
16 the issues in order to put that in.
j x
d 17 I don't think there is much question that this is 5
5 18 l
proper with the threshold shown, so I don't view that there is
{
I 19 really much disagreement about number 4 in a substantive sense.
n l'
So I don't see any advantage in changing the formulation of the 20 21 issues to accommodate that particular item.
22 l
With respect to number 3 I think enough has been said 23 on that to indicate that part of it is relevant and part of it l
24 is not.
So it will fall.
)
4 25ll With respect o number 1, if, as the case develops, it 9
n l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
23,444 l
I l
1 l
becomes apparent that the attitude of operators is related to 4
l 2
l cheating then that will be fair game.
If not, it won't be.
3 Again, this effort to reformulate the issues, I would say, is O
4 premature and this sort of question can be handled at the hearing e
5 as evidence is presented.
M 9
3 6
So the result is that the formulation of issues which l
I g
7 l
has already been made will net be changed as a result of this I
j 8
motion, which means that the motion is denied.
Oc 9
The Staff's motion for reconsideration is before me a
c y
10 l
now for a decision.
The best way to resolve this -- the best i
3 h
11 way to rule on this, in my opinion, is to do it in writing, since is l
12 the Staff may decide to take further steps after the ruling is O i i3 mede.
So 1 wi11 reserve mv sedement on it unti1 next week end
=
Z 5
14 make a ruling in writing.
E
{
15 However, it might be appropriate for any party who
\\
=
g wants to now to make comments on the motion.
16
/
17 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
The Licensee will have no comments, 5
18 l
written or otherwise, with respect to this motion.
=
l~
19 MR. ADLER:
Neither does the Commonwealth.
g n
i 20 l
MR. CLEWETT:
Mr. Special Master, by virtue of having i
21 spent the entire day discussing further discovery requests, we
~
O 22 have not hae a chence te reae this in any greet eeea11.
me, if 23 possible, would like to reserve the right to make a written 24 l
response very early next week, if such response would get to the 25 i Special Master before he rules.
V l
l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
~
23,445 i
1 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
According to my agenda that takes
)
2 care of everything but scheduling and witnesses.
I 3
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Except for a couple of cats and dogs,
! ()
4 but let's talk about scheduling for the moment and I'm thinking g
5 now in terms of Licensee witnesses.
~
6 We have laid out a planned organization of testimony R
5 7
which we are working hard at.
We plan individual witnesses, not sj 8
panels.
We plan -- in the nature of things, however, there is 0
[
9 a good deal of overlap between issues and on some issues more
?
10 than one and maybe as many as three or four witnesses are E
=
11 q
necessary.
So there will be a good deal of cross-referencing.
3 N
12 So that when you read the testimony of Mr. Arnold as E.
i 13 to response to the cheating incident you will read in it that x
5 14 he will also be hearing from follow-up actions by other witnesses 5
{
15 who had a role in the follow-up.
=
16 We have tried to organize our testimony in as logical
]e d
17 as fashion as possible and we very much hope that we will be 5
M 18 allowed to present our case in the order in which we have prepared l
Ce 19 it.
This in a normal proceeding, would come as a matter of g
n 20 course.
The Licensee puts his case on as he best thinks he The only complication here,,as I unders tand, the Board and 21 can.
22 i
the Special Master's most recent memorandum and order'is the f
l Board has indicated that it wishes to question several named 23 I
24 l
individuals, at least four of whom will be in our prepared es f
25 "
direct testimony -- will be giving prepared direct testimony.
t l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 23,446 I,
I,
)
I have no idea what the Board's November schedule is i
1 l
O 2
l or whether it's going to be free to take over or -- but in the f
i 3
l week of Noventer 10 we would start this process of Licensec l
4 witnesses and what I hope would happen, unless the Board could i
e 5
itself -- which would obviate the problem is that we may proceed 3**
i 3
6 on the planned schedule, that the members of the Board have the N
E 7
l benefit of whatever testimony is given, whatever cross examination j
8 is given, whatever questioning has been done by the Special i
d o
9 Master, and recall to the extent that the Board considers that
,z O
4 10 they have something more that they would like to ask them.
s.
I i
g ti i
d 12 x
5 13 14
{
2 15 i.
5 j
16 i
v'
?
t[
17 x
."f 18 E
I 19 A
20 21 I
22 1 O 23 ;
8 24l O
s 25 ;
1 I
{
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~_
H l
23,447 sc 1 - 13 i
i i
I But that we not be asked to break up our presentation
'O l
2 so that we put on those witnesses the Board has not indicated 3
it wants to hear, and then at some later time we put oi. others.
l 4
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I will interpret that as a qu:stion, 5
g and I will try to answer it if I can.
i N
3 6
The Board probably will wait until the latter part
^n b
7 of the hearing, and the Board's decision about how many witnesses o
l
[
8 to call and what questions to ask will depend on what has developed r)e 9
~
x.
before that time.
c h
10 I should say that I also function as an advisor to the
=
II Board in addition to Special Master.
That's another one of g
12 my capacities.
So the Board expects me to advise them concerning
- i f
13 the status of the record toward the latter part of the hearing, z
y I4 and so their participation will take my advice into account,
=
{
15 which means that it will be likely that witnesses will have to
=.
a 30 l
n be recalled to some extent, although it's impossible to predict e
4 h
I7 to what extent.
But it doesn't seem that the Board's intentions
=
7 18 are such that the Licensee's normal -- the logic of the Licensee's P"
19 5
presentation would be disrupted.
e 20 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
All right.
21 Another aspect of this scheduling, Judge Milhollin, 22 we will put on a direct case by as many witnesses as we feel 23 is necessary to put on the direct case.
It will certainly not 24 be all of the potential witnesses listed by the Board or by the O
25 Special Master.
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
2 23,448 l
s I
j We would hope that both the Board and the Special O
2 Master would dacide -- we would go ahead with our direct case.
3 We would then go ahead with the Intervenors case and then go
)
4 ahead with the Staff case.
And at that point the Special Master s
5 would determine and the Board would determine which up to all R
6 or otherwise additional personnel in light of what they have s
7 had in the way of testimony up to that point -- what additional j
8 personnel they would like produced out of the -- for the hearing, Ud 9
but that we go ahead and proceed with our direct case, the d
5 10 Intervenors case to the extent they have a direct case, with l
l 11 the Staff's direct case, and then the Special 14 aster determine i
j 12 which additional people he would like to recall, and the Board
=
13 determine which additional people that it would like to call.
(])
j 14 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
It might facilitate the Board's 2
15 decision and my decision tn know as soon as possible what your 5
16 plans are, so that if an aspect or other of your presentation g
J.
p 17 was determined to be unacceptable, or if the Board or I decided 5
M 18 we would like to hear from two or three extra witnesses on a i
=
N 19 given point at a given time, we could let you know in advance.
a i
20 But I am simply throwing that out to you as a suggestion.
21 I'm not requiring it.
I 22 MR. TROUBRIDGE:
I'm not sure that answers your.
23 purposes.
Of course, you will have the prepared testimony by 1
24 i
November 3.
25]
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Yes.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_ ~ _ -
23,449 3
l j
l MR. TROWBRIDGE:
And that will show people exactly what it is we intend to put on, and maybe that would be time 2
l 3
enough for the Board to consider it.
(
4 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
It may very well be.
e 5
Other suggestions on the method of procedure of the i
R n
N 6
hearing?
e N
E 7
MS. SWARTZ:
The 3taff has nothing to add.
n E
8 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
You are generally agreeable with the u
dd 9
Licensee's suggestion?
-i 10 MS. SWARTZ:
Yes.
E E
11 MR. CLEWETT:
We would echo the Staff's view in this
<k e
12 merit.
3=
13 MR. TROUBRI Dbo :
Mr. Blake corrects me in one respect.
(]}
[
14 It could be that we would have a panel on training for the i
2 15 training part of it, but generally speaking my remark still holds, w
16 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Any other matters before we go to g
i d
17 a few points which I have to discuss?
E E
18 MR. CLEUETT:
If I may, when the Special Master ruled E
E 19 on our discovery request: number 14 to the Licensee, it indicated x
20 i
that it was possible through further negotiations this could i
21 be formulated in such a way as not to be objectionable.
22 we believe that such negotiations, to the extent they 23 can produce something, would not take very long at all.
And if 24 l
it is possible to schedule five or ten minutes of negotiation
(:)
e 25 ]
on this matter, that would be useful, we should think.
I f
k ll 0
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
4 l
23,450 t
1 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
I apologize.
I was reading.
\\.
2 JUDGE MILIIOLLIN:
Do you refuse to negotiate with 3
the Aamodts for five minutes?
O 4
(Laughter.)
e 5
MR. TROWBRIDGE :
No, no.
E N
d 6
MR. BLAKE:
Mr. Trowbridge said we welcome that e
R y
7 suggestion.
E 5
8 JUDJE MILL!OLLIN:
Are there any other matters?
n d
d 9
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
No.
I have no other matters, looking 5
5 10 through ~.ty notes.
?
5 11 JUDGE MILIIOLLIN:
Any othar party?
<M 12 MS. SUARTZ:
The Staff would just like to get an p$
()
13 update on its OIE report that is going to go into some followup j
14 investigation of its original August lith report.
2 15 As I indicated at the last conference of parties, that l
w 16 investigation was completed, and OIE was then in the process e
d 17 of preparing its report.
The report is complete.
I thought I E
E 18 would be able to bring an unexpurgated copy to you yesterday, E
l
{
19 but it wasn't back from reproduction at that point.
On Monday A
20 l I should be able to Federal Express a copy to you and get l
21 expurgated copies to the parties.
I'm not sure of expurgated 22 j
copies to the parties on Monday but early next week.
By
(}
23
" expurgated" I mean with the letter designations rather than 3
24 names.
{d 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~
23,451 5
1 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
That report refers to fthe followup investigation concerning the April incidents.
3 MS. SWARTZ:
Yes.
[d 4
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Is there any other investigation e
5 M
under way which might affect the hearing, in your judgment?
a 3
6 MS. SWARTZ:
No.
Rs 7
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I'm sorry.
To your knowledge.
~
E l
5 8
MS. SWARTZ :
No.
O 6
9 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Mr. Chairman, one housekeeping matter.
p, 10 We have gotten somewhat confused as toshich documents E
11 j
should be served on the Licensing Board at this point.
He d
12 understand the distinction between ordinary and discovery matters e
=a
()
but with respect to discovery requests, discovery responses E
14 y
and documents in connection with discovery dces the Licensing 9
15 j
Board need any of these?
Are they solely for the Special Master?
?
16 We do understand that for. ordinary filings the Board H
17 0
and all parties to the. proceeding get copies and that Mr. Smith E
18 g
gets two copies.
E 19 You are referring to interrogatories, JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
A 20 l for example?
21 MR. TROUBRIDGE:
Yes.
I'm referring to that box, 22 those two boxes over there.
O.
23 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
You' re referring to discovery g
24 N-responses.
(
25 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Discovery requests, discovery i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
.n
l 23,452 6
'l I
l 1
i responses, both, and the documents produced -- that is, documents 2
as well as interrogatory responses.
The question in our mind is -- and one we have not 3
4 been consistent to date with in our filings, e
5 g
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
The serving of the request would 9
0 6
not be burdensome, would it?
e G
S 7
f MR. TROWBRIDGE:
We can do it.
E 8
n JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I'm thinkino now of -- I'm not d
d 9
thinkirg of burdenseme in the sense of administratively
.j
-E 10 difficult.
I'm thinking of burdensome in the sense of how
=
E 11 g
much paper we're talking about in bulk.
d 12 3
I assume that the responses to discovery are O
- =
13 i
simply too bulky to be served on the Board, so the answer is no, 5
14 y
responses to discovery don't go to the Board.
=
l 9
15 2
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
All right.
=
~
16 y
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
But requests or cover letters 6
17 enclosing responses to d;;covery might very well go to the ax 5
18 Board, simply so that the members will know that discovery
=
C 19 g
l has been requested, and that responses have been furnished.
20 i
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
All richt.
s 21 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
That would keep the Board abreast I
(:)
22 T, of the case, but would not bury it in large boxes such as I
23 l the ones you are sending to me.
i 24 j
(:)
25j i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i
7
[
23,453 1
1 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
One other peculiarity of the memorandum O
2 and order of the Special Master, when it gets to cross examination, l
3 has cross examinat.on plans furnished the second but not the O
4 first week.
e 5
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Yes.
There's meant to be a clarifi-9 6
cation, and I'n glad you brougnt it up.
That, of course, is R
R 7
meant to be included along with the other weeks.
Also, you
%j 8
should notice that the witncsses who are mentioned as being G
d 9
requested by the Board in the order which I issued are not the g
10 same witnesses as the ones which I mentioned from the bench.
E l
11 The ones in the order are fewer in number.
You can
's d
12 assume that the later declaration governs.
E O9E 13 MR. TROUBRIDGE:
All right.
E h
14 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
One more housekeeping matter.
2 15 If there are requests for sequestration of witnesses, E
16 they should be made before the hearing, and parties should be j
+.
b~
17 prepared to argue that question when the hearing begins.
w h
18 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Or to reach agreement on
..t.
5 E
19 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Or to reach agreement on it.
It 5
20 would not be efficient if that emerged as a totally new subject 21 on the day we begin the hearing; so I'm simply asking you to
! ()
22 either negotiate on the subject or make requests before the 23 hearing begins with respect to sequestration, and be ready to 24 address that subject at the beginning of the hearing.
/}
25]
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
I'm sorry.
I was. slow in understanding.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
23,454 8
i You talked about sequestration of witnesses and I was thinkint of
()
l in camera sessions.
That's not what you were talking about.
2 I
3 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
No.
I was referring to sequestration
()
4 of witnesses.
e 5
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
That the witnesses not be in the E
N 6
room to hear other testimony.
7 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
That's right.
N 8
I have a couple of points which I think it's well to a
d 9
bring up now.
i h
10 MR. ADLER:
If I may, we have one more housekeeping M
E 11 matter, if now would be the appropriate time.
<3 d
12 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Now would be a better time than later.
z E
=
13 Go ahead.
()
s 14 MR. ADLER:
At the last meeting I was designated as N=
2 15 the person for the Intervenors who should receive rapid communica-E 16 tions.
By virtue of the fact that I'm going to be spending more s
M d
17 time in this area and less time at my office in Washington, I E
E 18 think that will turn out to be an inefficient procedure; and
=
h 19 I understand that Ms. Bradford woold be willing to take my s
n 20 l place in that regard as the designated person for rapid 21 communications.
22 With the permission of the Special Master, we wou: i
- (3 23 like to make that substitution.
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
24 l
(
25 lj MR. TROWBRIDGE:
That is, Ms. Bradford would represent e
l 6
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
4..
l 23,455 l
9 I
the Aamodts in special --
1 i
1 2
JUDGE MILilOLLIN:
She will be responsible for passing 4
)
3 along special communications to the Aamodts.
l 4
I e
5 A
n 3
6 e
R i
8 7
\\
8 8
n d
i d
9 l
i O
y 10 7:
11 7
1 i
s d
12 r-iG s
13 i
z
?!
14 i
- s 1
x 2
15 4
x g
r 16 i
i f
H 17 1
0
=
.=
i E
18 t
1 e
i E
19 I
l 5
i l
20 6
i 21
}
I i
22 l
1 i
23 4
i 24 i
0 j
i I
25 :
J Q
I 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 l'
23,456 l
14-1 l
1 I
i MR. CIIWETT:
It may well turn out that it is not a O
2 burden to the Licensee or the Staf f to contact both Intervenors, l
and we would urge that they do that.
But to the extent only 3
()
4 one person is to be contacted, it would be inefficient for my
)
5 g
office in Washington tc be contacted.
9 6
So, to tha'. extent, I offered the comment that I did.
But R
- 5 7
we would appreciate being nctified and having both intervening sj
-8 parties be notified, to the extent that is possible.
G 9
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I have a few comments concerning
~
?
10 the ger aral nature of the hearina, and what the most important
=
II issues miaht turn out to be, b
N I2 I make these comments because of the peculiar
=
13
()
scheduling restraints which apply to this proceeding.
As z
5 I4 you no doubt heard at our last session, the Licensino Board 5
l b
15 plans to make its decision on the second part on the issues
=
E I6 which remain at the end of November.
v:
I7 '
When that decision is made, it will go to the w
I6 Commission, and the Commission will then have 35 days to review P
I9 8
it.
It is possible that there will be a request for an n
0 I
interim report by the Special Master concerning the content 21 of the record.
I 22 l
I say it's possible.
No one, of course, knows 23 whether such a request will be made.
However, it is important 24 i
for you to realize tnat because if a request is made and there s
25 11 is an interim report, you will be asked to comment on the l
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 23,457 14-2 I !
interim report.
In ov er to do that effectively, you will 2
l need to follow the development of the case carefully with 3
notes, so that soon after the record is completed, you can O
\\J 4
make comments on whatever report I might make.
e 5
A In other words, it would be more difficult for you a
E 6
to respond to a report I might make if you wait until the case "e
7 n
is over befor+ you begin to review the record.
N E
8 I simply point that out to you as a possibility, u6 9
g, so that you can be aware of it.
5 10 2
The second thing I point out to you is, given that
=
E 11 fact, given the fact of that possibility, you probably should d
12 jG consider -- you should consider this:
What' issues will be
( )
3:
13 important at that moment.
14 i,f I should imagine that retesting will be important x
9 15 at that moment, and I should -- in fact, I would guess that jj 16 the adequacy of the retesting will be the most important d
17 g
l question at that point.
18 l
I am not stating that I believe that should be
=
i 19 A
the case or will be the case.
I am simply saying that I foresee 20 l
that as a possibility, and I am simply sharino with you my 21 prediction about that.
22 I should also imagine that at that time the extent
(])
i 23,
j of cheating will be important as an issue.
I mention that 24 ll think the conduct of the hearing miaht be aided only because I
{
f if I share that prediction with you.
I e
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I i
23,458 14-3
()
And that's really all I have to say about that.
2 l
I think when we get into the details of arguments on points
()
and subpoints, it is easy to forget what are going to be the 4
crucial matters which will be decided later on.
So I am just e
5 g
making those comments with the hope that it will increase 2
6 1
the chance that we will keep our eye on the important issues 7
during the hearing and not get distracted by ones which are not n
E 8
so important.
u d
9 Again, I am not t.olding that those are the important j
c E
10 E
issues.
I am simply sharing with you my suspicion that they
=
2 11 j
might become the important issues c t some point.
d 12 E
Oh.
One more housekeepino matter.
Will the
(
13 Licensee call Mr. Kelly as a witness?
14 MR. TROMBRIDGE:
We had not had Mr. Kelly in our
=
\\
F 15 j
plan for direct testimony.
16 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Will the Staf f ?
d 17 MS. SWARTZ:
The Staff had no plans to call Mr. Kelly.
x=
M 18 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Could either of ynu facilitate
=F E
19 g
his appearance?
)
I would think that's likely, and we 20 MR. TRONBRIDGE:
21
.are aware that he's one of the individuals requested, either O'.
22 by -- I forget whether by the Board or the Special Master.
23 ;I JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Well, he's not represented by an E
attorney in this case, so someone will have to serve as the 25 i
original contact for Mr. Kelly.
Do I hear a volunteer?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 23,459 I
14-4 j
1 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
We will serve as the initial 2
contact for Mr. Kelly.
3 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
And again, not askino for a m
5 f
response now, but he was included in my question to the Board E
6 h
as to whether we FP'uld proceed with our direct case as we R
7 l
l
[
'j fashion it, and *
'r cases, and then come back to Mr.
E 8
Kelly Jr anybody else that wasn't in our direct case.
d 9
p JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
E 10 l
I 5
Does any party have a further matter at this time, E
11 additional matter at this time?
d 12 i
MR. CLEWETT:
Only the five minutes of meeting.
13
=
with the Licensee.
14 p
JUDGE h1ILHOLLIN:
Well, not having heard the 2
15 j
5 Licensee say that~the Licensee won't neet, I assume that
]
16 2
can be done inmediately after we adjourn.
i d
17
{d MR. TROUBPIDGE:
Did you want the Special Master M
18 5
to stay available for arbitratinc?
E 19 5
i MR.
C" SEW.UTT :
I assume the possibility that that l
20 would be required rer.ains, so I guess I would like to impose 21 l
upon the Special Master for another five minutes of his time.
22 l
O-JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
We will adjourn for five minutes, 23 and then we will reconvene.
24
(])
(Recess at 5:25 to 5:30 p.m.)
25,j I.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
15:~l: mas l
23,460 l
1 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Mr. Clewett has the revised Interro-2 gatory 14, which is acceptable to the Licensee.
I suggest it 3
be read into the record.
4 JUDGE MILHCLLIN:
Very well.
g 5
MR. CLEWETT:
We have asked the Licensee to provide 3
6
-- I will quote Interrogatory 14 -- for May 1979 list of written R
7 radiation work permit tests given to unlicensed personnel, s
j 8
including the dates of those tests and proctoring arrangements 0
9 for those tests.
?
10 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Mr. Special Master, I would like the 6
II Special Master to understand that we give no guarantee that our d
j 12 records are capable of producing that information, but we would
=
13
[
certainly provide it if they do and tell them if they don't.
z 5
I4 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
There being no further business on 15 the agenda, the hearing is hereby adjourned until further
-g' 16 notice.
7:
~
17 (Whereupon, at 5:35 o' clock p.m.,
the hearing was 5
{
18 adjourned.)
E 19 K
l 20 21 l
23 24 l
()
25y F
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- -. -......,.... -.. ~. -, -.. - -. - - -
I i
O NUCLZAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN O This is Oc certif*/ Ohat the attached proceedings before the O in the satter ef:. ASLB/ Metropolitan Edison Company (TMI Unit 1)
Date of ?receecing:
October 16, 1981 DeckeC Number:
50-289 (Restart)
? lac e o f.'8Pcceeding:
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania were held as herein appears, and cha: :his is the originsi transcript therecf for the file cf the Cec =ission.,
Ann Riley Of ficial. ?.'eperter ( Typed) 00 Wil)
Official Reporter (3ignature)
I 3
t
- l. -..
-,, -,,, -,. -.,. - - - -. ~ - - - -, -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, - - - - - ' - - - - - ~ - - ~
- - - - -, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - ' ' ' - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - - - ~ - '