ML20039F822

Motion for Reconsideration of Aamodt 811210 Motion That Hearing Be Stayed to Examine Integrity of Sequestration of Witnesses.Alternatively,Requests Directed Certification. Licensee Preparation of Witnesses Violates Order

ML20039F822
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	01/08/1982
From:	Aamodt M AAMODTS
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8201130423
Download: ML20039F822 (7)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,/

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00f.KETED uwc BE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Ab

'82 Jf.N 12 Pl2:09

' f/

M

. ;M' ~ ? }

V

A CL g.o

,g.

)

m.

j

_,, h f o

M I,

tt D>

% -t

)

MR N EDISON COMPANY Docket 50-289 Restart

)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear

)

Station, Unit 1

)

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION 1.

INTRODUCTION In a prehearing conference of the parties to the reopened hearing on cheating,-Judge _.Milhollin introduced the =.

n -.

,J

@';7, subject.-of sequestration'of witnesses.-.(Memorandum and Order,r,-

gy

_ ~ ~ ~. -

October 2 7, ~ 19 81 ~, p. )~.

The intervenors ( Aamod t s' and THI A): ^.

L.

Nsf framed a' notion ~ f or' sequestration' of witnesses that was--.

Z2 m

[

j =- ----- [d i s t r ib u t ed'- t b a11 p a r,t ie s:

~

at.t h e' ifir 's tc s e s si on'-o f t h e 'h e a r i n gir.;;. -

a n d d i s c u s s e d o n -t h e - :r e c o r d. = T r.I -2 3, : 5 3 2'.' :- 2 3, 5 5 2 - (Clewe t t,s ;.

fn gg a....:

21%'

- Blake,- Goldb'er'g, Adler', Milhollin)a Judge : Milhollin. in f orined t c s :-- - -

g_g;;;__.

3 "T. ~ ~ ~~ -

t h e. *p a r,t ie s' t h a t' he' intended: to -gr an tr th e' 'mo t ion: a n d - m a d e s s e- --:. -

g -- r ;-_ _

ht._ ~.'

' clarification ~s of what' a sequestration order:would entail. ( I d., :...~

.,]

-- __ E = _

Mi1ho11in)'.

ig hi The sequestration order was explained to include

--s

__1, the following' elements:

a.

No other witness'could be p r e s e n t-

= =- =...

E-A in the hearing room while another witness testified. (Tr. 23, 544,

.e...

~ ' ~ ^

M i lh o ll in) '.

b.

Th e~r e - we r e no subdivisions o f -wi t n'e s s e s.---

dEk

(

(Tr. 23, 547, Milhollin)~.

c.

Witnesses are prohibited against.<;

commini'ating'with-other witnesses, including ~. witnesses who have

. C..

c

. already testified..(Tr. 23, 548, Milhollin).

d.

The spirit of r.

~

6 90 8201130423 820108 7 gP PDR ADOCK 05000g Q

___-s

the scquestration order should reach witnesses, neither of whom have testified.

(Tr. 23, 550, Milho111n).

e.

Attorneys were. instructed not to engage in any communica, tion which would tend to undermine the spirit of the prohibition against the communication by witnesses.

(Tr. 23, 552, Milho111n).

Licensee's counsel stated th'eir agreement with~

the sequestration order in.that they understood the intent was to develop a complete and fair record.

(Tr. 23, 534, Blak'e).

Licensee asked that two witnesses be excepted, those being Mr. Robert Arnold and Mr. John Wilson.

(Tr. 2 3', 534 - 23, 5'35,

~

Blake).

The Commonwealth indicated that they considered the independence of analysis between witn e s s e s ; Mr. ' Trunk and. Mr.'

A-

~...,.

E 4e z _, w i l s o n.,s t o be a: critical.-issue.in t h e. ' p r o c e e d in g.---- (T r ? -2 3 ', : 5 4 6','- H 1 -

~

pgg.. n; - ;

u -Adler). '

r-3 " ~,

z :.

-=-

ge: -

Counsel f o r. t he Aamod t s!.sp eci fied' tha t' they' -con sid er edu-

=_-.. -... -

to ' be 'p art icul'arly: ~importan t. n t -

f.~*.Ee_

. _. t h e'.'s e q u e s t r a t i o n' o f the.'o'erators

~

p p -- @ :c q s g; q: n -

'__. i.

. - o Ih e' 'in t e g r i t y2 'o f - t h e.: h e a r in g'..s-2 T r.T-2 3,'. 53 231eIrei t4.,4 N. J.

.t

~

a --

u. ;-m.: -

7. -

. 5-.

. On N o v e mb e r'.12,' '19 817, Tthe.~re s triction s-on ~at t orneyss yr. :

~

.ird - N U '-

s:

~ ( _.

"p:s*:+E+r*_:, n ' wa s c;f u r t h e r. c l a r i f ie d54 Co un s e l wo u ld : b b c o ve r e d -b' t.h e ~u n d er.%r -. -

w. y :. a- -

y

_.. ~

~

~ ~~.'-]~sa nd in g' t h a t' they' would.'d o nothing to und e rinin e-: the spiritdr-,

N N I!~~' M of the sequestration'ordeF.

Tr. 23, 844', Milh o 1~11n)'.

In -

h_-.

k N d_.__._._.,~ preparing.a client,nattorneys were ' instructed-witness who was a

._5R-to refra.in from communicating. the. content. of another witnessh.e

>_ -m_ _ _...

-tW-- ~ ~

. testimony.

[(Td.~)'.

3:;'m

.g' '

~

II. DISCUSSION.r.

.m r -- - - -

[QU',T. f... _

On De cember+ 1: a~nd= 2, 1981,4Mr. William Ward.of I&E.!E L r=-

pw :__._

gE,.

testified: that Operator P had revealed und er ' ques tionin g' d ur in g- ~-a

~c h.:

,y..~.

3 u.._.

the-NRC' investigation' of cheating,- that an in s t r u c to r4. M r." llu s t e d -,:;-

p. -- --

l l

._y.

m.

. - * - + -

o

. = - -. - - +. -

a had solicited information from him during the NRC licensing examination in April.

The investigators had decided, after consultation with Mr. Stello, not to include this information in their reports. (Tr. 25, 316 - 25, 317; 25, 416 - 25, 419; 25, 460 - 25, 465; Ward).

On December 9, when Mr. P appeared at the hearing, he testified unhesitantly And in detail in answsr to questioning about Mr. Ward's testimony regarding Mr. Husted's solicitation.

(Tr. 26. 691 - 26, 695, Mr. P).

Since there was no report of this in f o rt.s t ion in the NRC reports and since Mr. Ward testified that NRC had not transmitted this information to the Licensee (and-there was no evidence of this information in the H uk ill-interview. notes), therlackrof hesitancy or startle on the paYt-

_7.._.

b

~

o'f - M.-:cP 1'e d' Mr s1 Aamodt.to question.him' relative'.to hi s'ri r:.

r m

7_. -

-T knowled'ge'of Mr. War'd's testimony in the proceeding. _Mr.

P -

i -

s t a t ed --t h a t Licensee's ' counsel had discussed Mr. Ward's testimony -

pg-,

[wik h: liiEi.1:.(Tr 7: 2 6,7 712', Mr.'P.).

. k

~

[.[~~7~~~

It 'should be noted;that Licens ee ! s 'c oun sel's' ' examination-yyy -

of the Husted;-4 PT 2.

m.s Q.f" _ ':.._._--.;.o f Mr.r.Wa r d, ut h e' d a y -f.c l l o win g' t h e _ r e ve l a t i o n Lm=. _: -;--_ _. _.. _._.. _.

P given a week:l'ater.

w.

E=Ek- -.,'. =~ _ s o l i c i t a t i o n ~,. t r a c k s 't h e' ~t e s t im on y o f M r.

~

21r -

}[7 f ~ _

'.(Tr.

25, 461, linest21~-: 25;'25,.462,:. lines 1 "6,

Bl a k e )'.

~

9 _' ~

Following Mr. P's revelation that Licensee's counsel r_- :..

L4:. % -

c--

.-~-~had c 6 minun i c a t e d Mr.~ Ward's testimony, Judge Milhollin attempted m=.

l-f-E-to inquire relative'to the content:ofathe communciation. -Licensee.

b..=-

-w g a.-

counsel interjected and suggested a bench conference.

A lengthy m."

nIH h discussion followed.in which Licensee counsel asserted that they - --

g.. -

_. would ~ resist: any attempt.to question Mr..P relative-to his r

E.

L'-

' preparation to testify.

a-e.

mo-e e

-=-+ -

._,-o,sse.-sw

_im-e.e,,

m s

Mre. Aamodt did not persist in questioning Mr. P relative to his preparation by Licensee counsel, although Judge Milho111n stated that he would uphold such questioning.

The Aamodt view was that Mr. P,had already testified regarding that preparation, and that that preparation clearly violated the Sequestration Order as issued on November 16, 1981,. and the intent and spirit of sequestration as discussed on the record.

Licensee counsel stated off the record on. December 9 t

and on the record on December 10, 1981, that they had slso communicated Mr. Ward's testimony concerning the Husted - P solicitation to Mr. Husted who testified on December 10, 1981.

On December-10,-1981, p rio r-t o the examination'of-

._3 ;, :--- _

'the' witnesses, the Aamodts motioned. that' the hearing should ' '.

-jN

^

-~

~

3

.be stayed f or' the purpose of examining the.' integrity of the

.- s

=_ _

process. -The motion was brief since all 'p~arties had been 1:

Q,^

~

5-} --d. ~ -

- presen t-f or' the off-the-~ record discussion of the violation'of- ?

m

33. 3 -

~jly.'

- ] t he* se qu es t;ra t ioni ord eri-a s.r e vealed. by Mr.vP, a ll 'p a r t i es.! -h a d #3 q:f_z ^ :-

W?

_1 bee'n -present during the~ instructions of Judge Milholli'n 'c o n c e r n in g*c; -

_3.. :,.;

5-. - -

@M,

,[the~ meaning of t h e 'o r d e r ',c and the Seg'uestration' Order had bee'n u

,gx.

15774-.

served on all the parties'.

(The' Sequestration Order is attached'.)~

s

3. :m._.-

fj "-

To the extreme surprise of the Aamodts, : Judge Milhollin' sh-LL' denied the motion.

vw-

-- G; =- -

III.

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE SPECIAL MASTER -

k-In considering the evidence of the reopened hearing,-

. - ~..

g-; f

'the Aamodts ~ are struck by the failure of the cross-examination' -

L

~.7..

j(

of the operators to produce any-evid ence to resolve the. u n --

r.T--i -

_' ~

answered questions left by the'NRC i n v e s t i g a t i o n s.- Although

.t

}.

c =.

G 1

legal arguments can be made,.they are not.an acceptable substitute for confident hearing record'.

In the case of the testimony of Mr. P and Mr. Husted, Licensee's counsel has admittedly interfered with the parties' desire to obtain independent accounts of an incident:that occurred sometime ago.

Th&* extent to which Licensee's counsel undermined the independ-

.ence of testimony through violation of the sequestration order the is unknown.

Itl.is important to knowjextent', in order to assess the ivalue.:; of the testimony.

The Commonwealth, for instance,1statedatbattone26f the best ways to determine the truth of the facts, particularly of an occurrence six months ago, is to get independent testimony; the Commonwealth perceived that as one of the major purposes of sequestration'and felt that.

^

. ' -.f. - -

purpos.e would be

~

= 3-- - -=;.

f r u s t r a t e d -i f 'c o un s e l w e r e a ll oVe d t o d i s c'u s s r9 d'g prior t e s t imony wi t h' Vi't n'e s s e s ce.- (Tr'. 23, 853,'Adler).

g-,

~-

I't.wo uld 'a' p e'arLf r oin-Jud ge ' Milhol li'n? s-J in s t ruc t ion ~s e. -

p

- - - ~ -

4:. u.-

thati any preparation' of the operators by Lic'ensee 's 'counse1 v'as 'te~.

pal: -,..

.+

L22-2.

imp ro p e r'.

Tr.T 2 3, - 8 5 7',1 :lin e's 2'O."-; 2 5..' i.'

' u. - :"-

W--

^^

w w,

.++

...r A.Fn :-+._ = -

${_lA ~

~

It -w o u l d a l's o' a p p e a r_ t h a th L'i c'e n s e e ' s1. c o u n s h imd's l ib'e r a t e l ys l

. ~.

...~ n~L

.in s t r u c t i on's : rji vio1~a tsd c_ tlie 'Se que s t ra tion' and-J d'ge' Milhollin'.'s t w,F_...-. _:

u m

qqp -

[r[~~

in.that* this counsel. indicated tha t - t heir in t'e rpre ta tion' o f c f - ~

..,x..

w.w.

.^ 4

g;g-the s e q ue s t r a tion ~ ord e r. would. depend -on whe r~e - n ew-slan t s on ---

f-

.]'_.g issues developed.,(Tr. 23, 847, Blake).- Certainly.the Ward. c testimony regarding Mr. P and Mr.'Husted was a "n ew slan t '!.{.

~

.g--

Licensee's. counsel:found in their research no case where counsel a

$hy-was prohibited from discussing with a client, and answeredse

.mr y,

,a 1F,..

a number: of times that they did not know to what degree -they

..zW would - restrict -themselves in communicating t he' 't es timony o f a. ' -

~.

M '"

one witness t o an o t h e rv, (Tr. -2 3,' 8 4 7 ; < 2 3, 8 4 6',' ~BlaYe ).-

~

L-e M.

emi "

4.*w a="--

6 J

Yet, Licensee's counsel subsequently assured Judge Milhollin

(,.

• m that in the earlier hearing on reitart, that they (without s ^

a sequestration order) had only given f a i r l y g e n e r a l i-n s t r u c t i o n s Y:.

3'.;

to a witness called by another party. (Tr. 23, 848, Blake).

1}.;

Licensee's counsel repi esented, in the absence of any. direction 3.;h by Judge Milhollin relative to the preparation of a witness

?:<

/,.

c'alled by the Board or another party, that the witness would 3 ;,j, only.be given general instructions (who the parties in the c.P' proceeding were, how it would be set up, that they were being t

called, to be honest, to listen to questions).

Licensee's e

counsel assured that they would not propare the operators as s

they might a witness who was more clearly appearing on-behalf

.'rgg.gg y..

_j- - 'I.

J-?__...

af management; (Tr. -23, 849,.'Blake)..

~~

~

' a_%C6 0'.

Licensee's' actions in t h e p r e p a r a t i o n'. o f Mr. P ind..d. '.'

W=7 d..g..a...

Mr. Husted das clesrly a violation of the Sequestration Order' i

-m_

Q _h_e.~_

of this hearing.

The: denial.of the ' Aamod t-motion and -.thea 4

.Mr_.x 7.:G F F. :. 2.

the :Special-Master or the ' Board..to : initiate /any.pyc r.

. ~.

--~failur~e of

. 5.V L mQj.L.",- [

- act ion - ~t o : add re s s this, viol'a t} ion'-have bedn.gro s s-er rors. ::r.TheN w

.l~ 5 r, 1 -?;F Y 7 Cr$ 1., ".2_~

-t o :r e c o n s id e'rl- - ; v.

f ggf.g..y._.'- i / _ A a m o d t s',' e t h e r e f o r~e.y.r e q u e.s t,t h e ':S p e ci a L.Ma s "Qg3Q~i

?;'c;_.., t h e ir. fm o t i o n'.t o examine';theTint'egr'ity of the process 6by Nhicit c.

=.-

> x-w y : '-

the" evidence was developed prior to recommendin'g findings;an'd.:

.Qp g..

?ig *= ;

~

~ -M conclusions to the Boa rd.-.

~

IV.

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE' MOTION TO THE BOARD.T.),3 -

us.w m ::..

$256?- -

. In the' event the Special Master declines to reconsiderc.

?fd?~-#N -

M@XJC ".

his previous ruling,.or fails to initiate his own action, t h e >",

. +1.

.-wq -

-x,..

k&.J.

Aamodts. request that their. motion.be certified-to the " Licensing :r g-- ---_ :

.m.<._.-

10 CFR'2.722(a)(2)'and the Board'-a Memorandum

^~P.~_-[_C.i_

• Board' pursuant-to

-y: m, d a t e d. - S e p t e mb e r -14, - 19 81....

l z-g.

. - -. =....:..=

. " ~ ~

The: motion and,the denial constitute a "significant cvidenticry ruling" es discussed under III.

The matter that is the subject of the motion affected the basic structure of the proceeding.

Respectfully submitted, S

^~

Ma rj or e M.

Aamodt January 8, 1982 NOTE:

This document contains no transcript page reference for the December-10, 1981 session of the reopened hearing.

Mrs.

Aamodt notified Judge Ivan W.

Smith December 17, 1981 that the December 10 transcript was not yet available either at the Philadelphia or Harrisburg Public Document Rooms.

Judge Smith indicated that~there had been'a delay in servicing.

transcripts-of in camera sessions. and-tha t-he might pro. vide'-

-c6.

f_;A-copies o f id en tified pages of thefl)e cember.10 :transcrip t..

-y E -E '~-~ ~

However, they were not: p r ovid ed'.

The 't ran scrip t' wa s still H

['

not available in Philadelphia on December 30.

On January 4, 1982,v' the Public Document Room at the Commission building w.as'not i; ;.1 able'to locate this t r anscrip t.d uring the' time'Mrst Aamodt.'

was th e r e.

~

Q Q :-7-E5-3:.':

,,N 7

-M(i.L,,._

r-v fdu - - = :. g. -.

_.c. -

7, _ -

L.-

p - :

~

7 a p= -

n:;

-- m.

sr..- + -

C.T. n * -,.OC,- ~. _ -

w a5--r.~,-

~"

f%=.T

~

?-? E =. -- - - -

q-gy a..

Q -

'Q -

K.

Ed.*

y=

.h-j

==.

TA. -.--

^

M ' *.Y ^.

- ~ ~... ~

H'* :2.

• 2P _~ 4%

7,p-:;.

2 'm. '

3-.

.$.* $.;^3

^l~,;'nx :.

M

,p 4-

W.

O*.KETED V3: RC

}

~81 NOV 16 P1 :48 ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,, ;; LECRETARY

d!

"3 & SERVICE BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3 RANCH v

SERVEDHQV y

A61981 In the Matter of

)

DOCKET NO. 50-289

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY

)

)

(Restart)

~

(Three Mile Island Nuclear

)s (Reopened. Proceeding)

Station, Unit 1)

')

N

)

s.,

SEQUESTRATION ORDER a.

g-a.-

t'*

It 'is ~ ordered thati. no prospective': witnNs'ses-for'-the Recipened.=.5"

?

Hearing o_n Three Mile Island Nucle'ar Station, Unit No.1, lis ted i-,

1, shall be ' pre.sent-in the hearing r_oom at any;tice'rs on Attachment

~

ji wherirany; other lis ted prospectiv'e~ witness is testifyihghiprovided',9 d.,i

_i, N howeverp that this limitation shall not-apply-to Rob'ert-T4: Arnold;7.d F-

~

}'

and.:f6r~ther provided', - however,. 'that this lim'itation shal-1 not appiy c.,

~

j

~

to-John: F-. Wil~s~o~n except,whed Ed#ard V. Trdnk is.testifyin,aj.ng.

t It is further ordered that no lis~ted prospective ~ witness shall,'.

prior to or af ter.his tes timony,. discuss with any other lis t e'd -

prospective witness, either prior to or af te'r such prospective:-

witness '- testimony, or with any' other Metropolitan Edison Company.=;r j

per_sonnel, the following~ matters ::-

1. ~ The' nature of the adminis tration (such as : '~

5 ins tructions given,: seating arrangements ~,= and the nature of the proctorin'g) of the. NRC ~ exams m r

?IIIl cm ~ -, n

o v a fu 1

a 1

ae

2-0 in April 1981 and October 1981, Licensee's Category T, April 1980 and 1981 mocks exams, and makeup exams from the April 1980 and Category T exams.; and 2.

the oral testimony (including questions asked), giv. a at the Reopened Hearing by any lis ted prospective witness :

provided, however, that neither of the two limitations lis ted above shall apply to discussions between any prospective witness and any other prospective witness or any Metropolitan Edison personnel, which discussions are necessary. or_ incidental -to. j.

~

.. - iq

- =-

the. expeditious comple tion of ordinary busine'ss. affai' s.re.. _ r r

R It is my intention that immediately after completion of J

g; -

the. oral tes t_imony o.f each lis ted prospective witness, I shall ',1=

.~

-admonish'. the-witness that. he "is to abide' by :the ' provision's: ofif c h 4

'2"

~

this-Order,crand shall."ahswer.. any_ ques tions the 'witne ss: may-a.

e

- c-

.._.;.[.._;._.._

Ek.

haverabout:-the.0hdeh.c. 4.-

-:m k

Thi~s. Orderishall-Wecome effective' as of o

/

hIM _[ ~

and shall ~ remain--in ef fe~ct until the Rec ~ord -for' the.' Reopened s.-'. -

z Hearing is closed.-

2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

~

~

=

g Sary L/Milhollin.c.

~~

Addinistrative Judge'and_.i Special Mas terx-:-

e e

• ~"

O

~

ce.hETEo

wC ATTACHMENT I R. Arnold

'81 NOV 16 PI.50 D. Boltz A

N. Brown

• SECRE ARY J. Herbein

..:.C ;HG & SERVICE

~

H. Hartman SRANCH,

p~.

H. Hukill T. Hull C. Husted D. Janes F. Kelly R. Lloyd R. Long F. McCormick i

G. Miller S. Newton

• i C. Pardi M. Ross G. Schile H. Shipman

• These two individuals who are to K. Starring :, - -

appear.as a panel of witnesses.are m.1

, }1 ~.

E. Trnnk -? rm..

each other the ' subject of.their:Er id' '

{

R. Toole.ledc.-

~

not prohibited from dis' ~ussing' with'.dl c

R. F. WilsbnW.

tes timony'. I' J. Wilsbn. :

r..

j m

A A. Shift. Supervisor. -

'JJ' *. STA TJ :

ha _. ;

B 3 Shift. Foreman-iin.c KK KF STA T!.= ---

. cc.

?f -

MM ;~o. STA-TA.-n C

O. CRO~.M~h

=- C E l. Shi~f t'.Sup erviso'ryr_. -

. 00_:0CR0 2N '-

- c; g.:

F : Shift Supervisor - o - -

i.,. QQ 4: STAT T&.

1.-

- PP E7 STE r.c.

~'

_. =

qp._

G O. C R 0 R G.h..

J. ' r-

r:= :-- r - --

,:.1 -

H E CRO RT -

RR.': STA:TA ?!

L

- I I.Shif t' Superviso~r f

.... SS l' CROJFO ': -

r 3

O C.

No Toriger, with CompanyJ O VV.T 0perations Interfachui-. -

~ ~ ~

QU CRO:..

Engine' era r

~ Shift Supervisor YY "

R P C RO.:=~:

- ~ ~ WW E 2-S TA ',.:.

S T. C RO ~ ~

=.

U

_ Shift Foreman V

CRO..U W C No longer. with Company s.

'No ' longe r wi th Company..= =-

r.

X e.

_c Y ': CRO :0 Z

Shift Foreman r-.

l AA :.i. CRO:~.3 u= :

GG ' ' Shift Foreman _se

[

z

.HH - No longer;with Company ;'

w 4,==.

~

._,.r_.