ML20117L092
| ML20117L092 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1985 |
| From: | Bauser D HUSTED, C.A., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#285-011, CON-#285-11 CH, NUDOCS 8505160088 | |
| Download: ML20117L092 (22) | |
Text
cIl s
s-May 14, 1985 00 gC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S
NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION MFICE OF SECRLI A*
00CKETgyERVICf In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No.
CHARLES HUSTED
)
DOCKET NUMBER ggg PROD. & tml. FAC., __
HUSTED REPLY TO NRC STAFF RESPONSE CONCERNING CHARLES HUSTED'S REQUEST FOR HEARING In a May 1, 1985 filing, the NRC Staff opposes the request by Charles Husted that the hearing afforded to him by the Com-mission include within its scope the question whether Husted's attitude or integrity bar his serving as an NRC-licensed opera-tor, or a licensed operator instructor or supervisor.
The NRC Staff's position rests on the assertion that Mr. Husted's
" unavailability to Licensee as a licensed operator or a licensed operator instructor or training supervisor is a direct result of an agreement between Licensee and the Commonwealth, not a result of any agency action against either Licensee or Mr. Husted."
NRC Staff Response to Charles Husted's Request
-for Hearing, May 1, 1985, at 4.1!
For the reasons articulated
. 1/
The NRC Staff makes a second argument concerning the basis for the Commission's hearing offer; however, that argument also is founded on the Staff's distinction between." Licensee's vol-untary action in entering an agreement with the Commonwealth,"
and " Commission action against a licensee which operates as a sanction against an individual."
NRC Staff Response at 5.
8505160088 850514 PDR ADOCK 05000289 O
PDR'
)
3 below, Mr. Husted believes the NRC Staff's position is an inap-propriately narrow characterization of the events precipitating the hearing opportunity afforded Mr. Husted by the Commission.
Moreover, the NRC Staff's position is significantly injurious to Mr. Husted's interest without offering any countervailing benefits to the agency.
In September, 1981, the TMI-l restart proceeding was re-opened because of the discovery of cheating by two senior reac-tor operators on NRC operator license examinations.
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), unpublished Licensing Board Memorandum and Order of September 14, 1981.
The subject of that reopened proceeding was how the cheating that occurred affected GPU Nuclear's qual-ifications and ability to operate TMI-1.
One of the particular issues in the reopened proceeding was the extent of cheating which occurred on NRC or GPU Nuclear examinations.
- However, this issue, and tlm general issue of the quality of GPU Nucle-ar's operating personnel, was raised solely in the context of the facility licensee's competence and integrity.
See Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), unpublished Licensing Board Memorandum and Order of October 14, 1981.
Whether or not individual operators were properly and therefore should remain licensed was not at issue.
The question was, if individuals lacked necessary qualifica-tions, should TMI-l be authorized to restart?
In-the reopened proceeding, numerous GPU Nuclear operators testified pursuant to intervenor subpoenas and the Special Mas-ter's request, both of which were resolved by stipulation among the parties, including GPU Nucle'ar.
Clearly, however, individ-uals were testifying in their professional capacity as the facility licensee's employees.
In fact, when one of the two SROs whose cheating precipitated the proceeding sought to ap-pear with counsel, the Special Master expressed the view that counsel was not permitted to fully participate because his cli-ent was not a party to the proceeding.
TMI-l restart proceed-ing transcript at 26,177-178, 26,183-190 (attached).
- Moreover, GPU Nuclear's counsel was extraordinarily limited in its abili-ty to even converse with its client's employees about their forthcoming testimony because of a court-ordered sequestration order.
See Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-772, 19 N.R.C.
1193, 1274-76 (1984).
In short, the agency process unquestionably assumed that it was GPU Nuclear, and not any individual employee, whose license was at-issue.
As a result of the reopened hearing, findings were made by the Special Master and the Licensing Board concerning, inter alia, Mr. Husted's attitude and integrity.
On the basis of these findings and its own view of the record, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed exceptions to the Licensing Board's deci-sion.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Exceptions to the Partial Initial Decision (Reopened Proceeding), July 27, 1982.
The.
Commonwealth' argued that restart of TMI-l should not be autho-rized unless and until action was taken to suspend Mr. Husted's use of his license pending a hearing.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Brief in Support of Exceptions to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Partial Initial Decision Dated July 27, 1982 (Reopened Proceeding - Operator Cheating), September 30, 1982
(" Commonwealth Brief on Appeal"), at 33.
The Common-wealth essentially mantained that, pending a hearing to fully air the issue, it would be unsafe or contrary to the public interest to operate TMI-l with Mr. Husted serving in any licensed capacity.
See id. at 16-27, 31-33.2/
Not surprisingly, the TMI-l licensee sought to reach an agreement with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which would re-sult'in the removal of the stated basis for the Commonwealth's public position against restart.
Not only was this action directed at resolving GPU Nuclear's interests, but Mr. Husted personally. understood and agreed with the need for such a reso-lution, given the Commonwealth's unfortunate decision to deem Mr. Husted's licensed status an obstacle to TMI-l's restart.
The stipulation between the Commonwealth and GPU Nuclear was reviewed and approved by the Appeal Board.
Metropolitan l
2/
Consistent with the focus of the remanded proceeding on cheating, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania characterized the action it proposed against two other individuals who were found
.to have cheated as "an appropriate remedy against the Licensee, i.e. to direct that Licensee not be permitted to operate TMI-l until appropriate enforcement actions are taken against these individuals."
Commonwealth Brief on Appeal at 30. I e-
-,vv
~
e v,
e
-w v,,
---,,-.-.,-,e-w, -
g--,,
r-.e--
,v
.r.,,,
r-ve
-g-,,we-,+
.v---ra+-
Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1),
unpublished Appeal Board Memorandum of September 22, 1983.3/
In ALAB-772, the Appeal Board again endorsed the stipulation; however, it concluded that the stipulation alone was insuffi-cient to remedy the situation.
Consequently, "in addition to those commitments reflected in the stipulation," the Appeal Board required that Mr. Husted have no supervisory responsibil-ities insofar as the tr uning of non-licensed personnel is con-cerned.
Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-772, 19 N.R.C.
1193, 1224 (1984).
Thus, the record developed in an NRC adjudication in which Mr. Husted was not a party, or on notice of a possible sanction against him, served as the basis for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania taking a position extremely adverse to Mr.
Husted's personal interests.
Moreover, this "no-Husted" posi-tion was assumed by the Commonwealth and transpired solely in the context of the facility licensee's qualifications to oper-ate TMI-1.
In these circumstances, Mr. Husted does not agree with the Staff's characterization of Mr. Husted's license removal as i
"not a result of any agency action against either Licensee or l
3/
Because of the Appeal Board's approval of the stipulation, in the recent remand on training the Licensing Board considered the issue of GPU Nuclear's judgment in allowing Mr. Husted to become Supervisor, Non-Licensed Operator Training to be outside the scope of the remanded proceeding.
Metropolitan Edison Co.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), Partial Ini-tial Decision on the Remanded Issue of Licensed Operator Training at TMI-1, May 3, 1985, slip op. at 71-72. <
Mr. Husted."
NRC Staff Response at 4.
It was the NRC proceed-ing on restart of TMI-l which led to the Commonwealth's posi-tion concerning Mr. Husted.
Moreover, the Commonwealth uti-lized the NRC restart proceeding process -- its right to appeal
-- as a way to effectively obtain removal (or at least suspen-sion) of Mr. Husted's license.
NRC Staff argues that litigation of Mr. Husted's qualifi-cations to serve as a licensed operator would " effectively re-scind" the contract between GPU Nuclear and the Commonwealth concerning Mr. Husted.
But the circumstances involved are much more complex than NRC Staff states.
First, it is undetermined whether the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would want to "en-force" its stipulation with GPU Nuclear if a hearing exculpated Mr. Husted.
See March 25, 1985 letter from counsel for Mr.
Husted to the Commission, at 3.
Furthermore, the NRC Staff does not address two other con-siderations of great importance to Mr. Husted:
(1) the possi-bility that Mr. Husted might seek an operating license for an-other nuclear power plant; and (2) the value to Mr. Husted of re-establishing his absolute integrity and qualifications in the nuclear power field, whether or not he ever seeks licensed operator status again.
Perhaps the NRC Staff is suggesting that it would never oppose a request by Mr. Husted to be licensed at any other nuclear reactor on the basis of-the find-ings made against him in the TMI-l proceeding.
However, Mr.
Husted has no such assurance from the NRC Staff. -
~
Moreover, as Mr. Husted previously suggested, perhaps the most.important, albeit intangible, value to Mr. Husted from a hearing on his qualifications to be a licensed operator is the opportunity to clearly reestablish his good name and character.
This. opportunity might be significantly diminished by a pro-ceeding which failed-to address his licensed operator status.
It was in an NRC proceeding that a cloud was cast over Mr.
Husted's character and integrity.
Fairness to Mr. Husted dic-tates that he be afforded the opportunity to fully remove that cloud.
-Finally, the NRC Staff argues that Mr. Husted's removal from licensed duties is not the agency's concern or doing;-con-
-sequently, "there is no apparent reason why the scope of that hearing should be expanded."
NRC Staff Response at 6.
The reasons previously articulated by Mr. Husted in his letter of March 25, 1984 clearly meet-the NRC Staff's opposition.
These reasons were:
(1) Mr. Husted's request would not expand the scope of the factual inquiry that would be involved;$! (2) con-sequently, entertaining this request would not entail an addi-tional commitment of agency time or resources; and therefore (3) fundamental fairness to Mr. Husted suggests that the 4/
In a pleading in which TMIA purports to oppose Mr.
Husted's request, TMIA in fact supports it, stating,'"even the scope of the proposed hearing, as narrowly stated by the Com-
- mission... must touch all four issues discussed above See TMIA's Response to Licensee's Notice Transmitting Husted's Request for Hearing, April 22, 1985 ("TMIA's Re-sponse"), at unnumbered page 10..
4
hearing include Husted's ability to serve in a licensed opera-tor capacity.
The NRC Staff identifies no facts or arguments which undercut these compelling reasons for granting Mr.
Husted's request, nor does Mr. Husted believe any exist.
In summary, Mr. Husted respectfully suggests that the NRC Staff's argument is unreasonable.
Mr. Husted restates his re-quest for a hearing which encompasses the adequacy of his atti-tude and integrity to serve in both a licensed and non-licensed operator capacity.
Respectfully submitted, bMk Deborah B.
Bauser SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1215 Counsel for Charles Husted Dated:
May 14, 1985 l
.5/
The NRC Staff does suggest that Mr. Husted's request denies TMIA a ruling on one basis for its appeal in the TMI-l l
restart proceeding, namely, its view that Mr. Husted had at-l tempted to cheat on an NRC examination.
Staff Response at 4 i
n.3.
This argument is odd, considering the absence of any ob-l jection by the NRC Staff to the issues Mr. Husted identified as encompassed within the Husted proceeding, including the issue of whether -Husted cheated, whether or not. his licensed capacity -
is at issue.
See letter from counsel for Husted, March 25, 1
1985, at 2 n.l.
It also is noteworthy that TMIA does not raise j
this objection, presumably because they concur with Mr. Husted that to resolve his qualifications in a non-licensed.or l
l licensed operator capacity, the proposed hearing "must touch' l
all four issues" identified by Mr. Husted.
TMIA's Response at i
unnumbered page 10.
l p
~
May 14, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00LKETEC NRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION OFFICE OF SECrit.iAn -
In the Matter of
)
00CKETg ERVICf
)
Docket No.
4 CHARLES HUSTED
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'I~hereby certify that copies of "Husted Reply to NRC Staff Response Concerning Charles Husted's Request for. Hearing" were served this 14th day of May, 1985, by deposit in the U.S. mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List.
Deborah B.
Bauser l
t 4
..m
i l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA J
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No.
CHARLES HUSTED
)
SERVICE LIST Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Mr. Philip R. Clark Secretary of the Commission President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission GPU Nuclear Corporation Washington, D.C.
20555 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 Herzel H. E.
Plaine, Esquire Thomas Y. Au, Esquire General Counsel Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Department of Environmental Resources Washington, D.C.
20555 505 Executive House P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Ivan W.
Smith, Esquire Ms. Louise Bradford Chairman TMI ALERT Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1011 Green Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Sheldon J. Wolfe Docketing and Service Section Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Gustave A.
Linenberger, Jr.
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Jack R. Goldberg, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20555 l~
l I
l
26,064 1
UNITED STATES OF AMEBICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3------------------x s
4 In the Matter of s a
s 5 HETHOPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY a
Docket No. 50-289 s
(Restart) 8 (Three Mile Island Unit 1) a 7------------------x 8
Dauphin County Courthouse 9
Commissioners Hearing Room Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 10 Sa turda y, December 5, 1981 11 12 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened 13 in in camera session at 9:07 a.m.,
pursuant to notice.
-14 BEFOREs 15 GARY MILHOLLIN, Speciel Master, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 On behalf of the Licensee, Metropolitan Edison Company s 17 ERNEST L. BLAKE, JR., Esq.
18 BONNIE GOTTLIEB, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 19 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 l
' 20 On behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvanias 21 l
ROBERT ADLER, Esq.
22 Assistant Attorney General 505-Executive House 23 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania I
l 24 l
l 25 l
!~
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGIN 4A AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
O 26,065 1
On behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodta 2
JOHN CLEWETT, Esq.
The Christic Institute 3
1324 North Capitol Street Washington, D. C.
20002 4
On behalf of Three Mile Island Alerts 5
LOUISE BRADFORD 6
JOANNE DOROSHOW 1011 Green Street 7
Rarrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102 8
On behalf of the Regulatory Staffs 9
MARY E. WAGNER, Esq.
JACK R. GOLDBERG, Esq.
10 Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 Washington, D. C.
12 On behalf of an Unnamed Pa rty, Mr. Wa 13 DAVID E. COLE, Esq.
Smith and Smith 14 Riverside Law Center 2931 North Front Street 15 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 16 On behalf of an Unnamed Party, Mr. Os 17 MICHAEL F. MC BRIDE, Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby C MacRae 18 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 19 20 21 l
23 l
24 l-l 25 l
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 e
26,k77 l'
1 by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement dated August 11, 2 1981, which I believe is Staff Exhibit Number 26, and I
)
3 believe you are identified in that exhibit in various places 4 as "Mr. O," and you are that individual, are you not?
I 5
MR. Os Yes, I am O.
g 6
JUDGE MILHOLLINs Very well.
7 The order of cross examination for this witness 8 will be changed 'so that the Consonwealth will go first.
9 HR. BLAKEs Judge Milho111n, to my knowledge, Mr.
10 0 has not previously been sworn.
11 JUDGE MILHOLLINa Yes, you are perfectly right.
12 MR. MC BRIDE:
Before we begin, Judge Milho111n, I 13 vonder if we could put on the record a discussion about the 14 matters you and I had off the record; that is te say, what' 15 role, if any, I will be permitted to play during the 16 testimony of this witness.
17 JUDGE MILHOLLINs It would be possible for us to 18 have that discussion now.
It also is possible it would
'19 never be necessary for us to have that discussion if there 20 never comes a time when it is necessary to define your 21 role.
Then we could avoid having the discussion.
+
22 If there should come a time, then it would be, I 23 think, a more realistic discussion if it were had in the 24 context of a specific -- if it were had in the context of a 25 specific issue rather than simply a general theoretical
~
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 m
26,178 1 discussion.1 2
HR. MC BRIDE Okay.
Why do we not defer the 3 discussion until the situation arises where it may be 4 required to have the discussion?
5 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I think that would be the best 6 procedure.
7 Whereupon, 8
MR. O 9 called as a witness by counsel for Intervenors, TMIA and the 10 Aamodts, having first been duly sworn by th e Chairman, was 11 examined and testified as follows:
12 CROSS EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. ADLERs 14 0
Good afternoon, Mr. O.
.My name is Robert Adler, 15 and I represent the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
16 A
Hello.
17 0
You have in front of you a document on your left, 18 which is Staff Exhibit 26.
And I believe it is open to 19 Enclosure 4, which is a sta tement dated 7/31/81.
Is that 20 the statement that you signed during the course of the NRC 21 investigation ?
22 (Witness reviewing document.)
23 JUDGE MI'LHOLLIN:
Ihis is a handwritten 24 statement.
25 THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
~
26,183 1
A Okay.
2 Q
Towards the bottom of the page there is an -
31nvestigator's note which says, "When VV name was first 4 brought up, O appeared not to remember any incident 5 involving VY and him."
Do you recall that, Mr. 0?
6 A
Could you tell me where --
7 HR. MC BRIDES Your Honor, I think the question is 8 ambiguous.- He has not defined what the antecedent is of 9 that, whether it is the incident of the discussion with the 10 investigator.
11 JUDGE HILHOLLIN:
I can see we are going to have 12 have our discussion.
It is not my understanding that I 13 agreed that the witnesses would have attorneys for the 14 purposes of objecting to questions on other than grounds 15 which are peculiar to the interest of the witness, such as
~
16 privilege.
And I think it is irregular for that to be 17 done.
There is certainly no right for a witness to have an 18 attorney.
19 3R. MC BRIDE:
It may_be irregular, Your Honor, 20 but this is an irregular proceeding.
21 JUDGE MILHOLLINs I do ne think this is an Ztirregular proceeding.
['
23 MR. MC BRIDE:
Well, I think it is unusual that I
24 this proceeding is being conducted in camera and that the l
25 circumstances that caused that occurred.
In any event a few l1 l
l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
26,104
- 1. weeks ago when I presented the stipulation to you, we had a 2 discussion on the record of some what I will call " side bar" 3 agreements with the parties about what certain words in the 4 stipulation meant.
And one of those references that'I made 5 was to paragraph 10 of the stipulation which referred to the 6 objections that might be raised during the course of this 7 proceeding.
8 And I stated that paragraph 10 of the stipulation 9 meant that we were waiving certain privileges that we had 10 asserted in the pleadings filed with the Commission-prior to 11 that date.
We were specifically waiving for the purpose of 12 the testimony that was sought, as I understood.it, the Fifth 13 Amendment, Privacy Act, and Freedom of Information Act.
14 I also specifically stated that what I referred to 15 as " routine" objections -- and I gave three examples:
16 attorney-client privilege, relevance, and form -- we were 17 not waiving and that we intended to preserve our ability'to' e
18 raise those objections at the testimony that was taken in l'
19 this proceeding.
i l.
- 20 Now, I can understand that in the course of that 21 discussion there might have been a. misunderstanding.
I am 22 not saying that you are going contrary to what our j
23 understanding was.
But-I am saying that was my 24 understanding of what our understanding was.
And it was on l
25 the basis of that understanding that I entered into the i
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~
'O 26,185 1 stipulation on behalf of this witness.
2-JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
The witness has no right to be 3 f ree from repetitive or irrelevant questions except insof ar 4 as that injures the interest of a party to the proceeding.
5 That is first.
6 However, I agree with you that I did not 7 understand there to be a waiver of the right of a party to 8 asse rt or to object to a question to the witness on any 9 ground whatsoever other than the privilege against to self-incrimination.
11 I think the need for orderly proceeding is such 12 tha t it is inappropriate for persons other than parties to 13 make objections which are grounded on anything other than a 14 privilege personal to the witness, and even then an 15 objection to a question based on privilege should in 16 ascerted by the witness after consultation with the witness
- 17 counsel if the witness believes that is necessary.
18 MR. MC BRIDE:
Let me first ask a question of 19 cla rification s Do I interpret what you just said as meaning 20 tha t if the witness desires to discuss with me the question 21 or his answer before he gives his answer, that I have that l
22 right?
L 23 JUDGE MILHOLLIN Only if the question relates to 24 something which inf ringes on a privilege which is peculiar l
I 25 to the witness.
!~
L ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON O.C. 20024 (202) 564-2346 l
~
1 1
26,186 1
MR. MC BRIDE:
Well, let me also say 2
JUDGE MILHOLLINs Such as the Fifth Amendment 3 privilege or the right to counsel privilege.
4 MR. MC BRIDE:
Let me also say that the record 5 will speak for itself.
But when I explained paragraph 10 of 6 the stipulation on the record and as I understand it, 7 although I was not there, a similar discussion was had with 8 Er. Cole today following af ter you had had an opportunity to 9 study the stipulation, and he said essentially the same 10 thing, referring to my statement of the previous evening.
11 It was clearly my understanding, with the words I 12 spoke at that time I may have used a somewhat ambiguous 13 pronoun, such as "our," but I believe I referred to our 14 ability to. raise routine objections of the type that I 15 discussed.
16 Let me also say that although it may be true --
17 and let us assume arguendo that it is true -- that a witness 18 is generally not entitled to have counsel present to object 19 to questions other than, as you referred to it, privileges 20 that may be peculiar to the witness, you had also ruled that 21 we had no right to confidentiality as a matter of law.
- Yet, Zt nevertheless you in your discretion and the Licensing Board 23 in its discretion approved the stipulation that the parties 24 and we entered into which provided f or confidentiality.
25 It seems to me that although the witness may in AL'ERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE.,.9.- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 n
26,187 1.
I the abstract not have the right to have counsel present to 2 aake those kinds of objections, you in your discretion may 3 do so.
And I do not think it would be any more irregular 4 for you to do that than it was for you to a pprove the 5 stipulation.
6 And it does seem to me that this catches me 7somewhat blind.
I had been under the understanding until 8today that I would have the ability to participate as though 9 I was representing a party.
10 JUDGE MILHOLLINs Mr. Cole may also have had that 11 understanding.. I think it is fair to say that it was 12 possible to receive the testimony of the witness represented 13 by Mr. Cole without the need for him to object to 14 questions.
15 NR. MC BRIDE:
I hope the same thing is true with 16 this witness.
All I was trying to do there -- and believe 17 me, I am not trying to obstruct or delay the proceedino 18 but all I was trying to do was make the question clear where 19 I-thought it was. unclear.
20 JUDGE HILHOLLIN:
My observation of the parties so 21 f ar in this proceeding has been that they have been quite 22 vigilant in preventing the record from being confusing.
And 23 where their vigila'nce has failed, sometimes I have come to 24 their aid.
So I think it is unlikely that the record is 25 going to be confusing as a result of imprecise questioning.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346 x
.s-26,188 1
So I can appreciate your concern about it, but.I 2 am confident that we can negotiate that difficulty on our
-3 own.
4 HR. MC BRIDE When you.say "on our own," who do 5 you include in. "our"?
I 6
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I include the parties and I
7 myself.
8 MR. MC BRIDE So that you mean to say if I feel 9 at some point into this testimony that I have a need to 10 speak, you are not going to hear me?
11 JUDGE NILHOLLIN:
I am saying tha t -- well, again,
12 it could be that there will come a time when you feel that, 13 based on my remarks that-I have just made, that it would be 14 appropriate for you to speak.
If there does come such a 1
15 time, I assume you will speak out.
-18 HR. 3C BRIDE Okay.
Well, I am going to instruct 17 the witness, a la the situation tha occurs in a grand jury i
I 18 proceeding where the witness is in one room and the lawyers 19 are out 'in the hall, that if the witness does feel the need
~
C.
'l 20 to consult' with me, as.I understand your ruling, he has tha t I
21 right and he only has to so state on the re cord.
22 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
The witness technically has no 23 right to consult with you.
24 MR. EC BRIDE:
I thought you just stated that he 4
25 did.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
o 26,789 1
1 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
He does if I let him.
Well, I 2 sean he may consult with you if I permit him to consult with 3 you.
I will permit his to consult with you so long as it 4 does not obstruct the proceeding.
5 MR. EC BRIDE:
Why do we not proceed and see how S it goes?
I will say that I am not receding from my position 7 that I would have a right to fully participate today, 8 subject to the limitations of the stipulation.
And I am not 9 suggesting that you do not have a righ t to hold a contrary 10 view.
But that is my position.
11 MR. ADLEBa I have a pending question which I am 12 going to withdraw and rephrase.
13 BY MR. ADLER:
(Besuming) 14 Q
Do you recall the NRC investigators bringing to I
15 rour attention the incident in 1979 involving VV?
16 A
Yes.
I
)
17 0
Do you recall that when they first brought it to 18 your attention you did not remember it?
19 A
When he first brought it out, it did not ring any 1
20 bells until he started to pursue it.
You know, he went down 21the line and pursued it a little more then.
Then it came ll 22 back.
23 0
The' second line of that note states, "When 24 Investigator Baci provided further details, however, O f
25 appeared dismayed and looked nervous and upset." -Is that an ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
~
4 26,190 I accurate representation of your behavior?
2 A
I do not know how I appeared to him.
What 3 happened to me was it seemed like a question that came out 4 of left field,- and it just took me completely by surprise.
5 I did not know what he wanted or, you know, wha t he was 6 asking or anything lik e that.
7 Q
Did you then recall the incident?.
l 8
A Once he -- once he pursued the incident, I did, l
9 y es.
-10 Q
Do you now have a fairly good recollection of the 11 f acts involving the VV-0 incident right now?
j i
12 A
Do you mean my conversation with the 13 investigator?
14 Q
No, no.
15 A
Or do you mean the incident itself?
16 Q
The incident itself.
17 A
Oh, yes.
You know, once he was able to tell me 18 wha t he was doing and, you know, what he wanted and he 19 ref reshed my memory, then I knew what he was talking about.
20 Q
Do you recall Mr. VV asking.you to provide the 21 answers to some questions?
i 22 A
Yes.
23 Q
Did you 'now at that time tha t these questions k
24 were a training assignment?
25 A
No, I did not.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGir'A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2345 o