ML20154L677
| ML20154L677 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#186-407 LRP, NUDOCS 8603120156 | |
| Download: ML20154L677 (78) | |
Text
ORIG NA(.
go -W O
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION O
LOCATION:
BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES:
1 - 76 DATE:
FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1986 p ol (i
O ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Ofici.t! Reprters 444 North Ca tol Street Washington,
.C. 20001 860312OiS60Ifob$20 (2N M*N PDR ADOCK O PDR T
NAT10NWIDE COVERACE
1 CR26044.0 l
7 DAV/Cjg i
i I
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
, 'N 1
/
,h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
1
- - - - - - - - - - -x I
i a
In the Matter of:
5 INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND Docket No. LRP 6,
UNIT 2 - LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION
_________h 7
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor Hearing Room 9
East-West Towers 4350 East-West Highway 10 Bethesda, Maryland jj Friday, March 7, 1986 The prehearing conference in the above-entitled matter
- ^
convened at 10:00 a.m.
'-l h 13 BEFORE:
1.:
JUDGE JAMES L.
KELLEY, Chairman At mic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 15 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 JUDGE JERRY R.
KLINE, Member 17 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 93 Washington, D.
C.
20555 JUCGE GLENN O.
BRIGHT, Member y,
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Wahsington, D.
C.
20555 21
- 1 23 N.
/
Aca-;awa 8+v>< tee s. h.c.
2i e
1l
i 2
I ih APPEARANCES:
/
J L_
, i, On behalf of GPU Nuclear *
'Ii il ERNEST BLAKE, ESQ.
i 3l J.
PATRICK HICKEY, ESQ.
i
?
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge i
4 1800 M Street, N.W.
I Washington, D.
C.
20036 S hl On behalf of Former Metropolitan Edison 6q Employees:
i HARRY VOIGT, ESQ.
MICHAEL McBRIDE, ESQ.
j Le3oeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 3
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
l Washington, D.
C.
20036 9
SMITH B.
GEPHART, ESQ.
10 Killian & Gephart 216-218 Pine Street, Box 886 11 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Cn behalf of NRC Staff:
i 12 JACK GOLDBERG, ESQ.
s m/
13 MARY WAGNER, ESQ.
Office of the Executive Legal Director 14 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 15 On behalf of Jack Herbine:
I6 JAMES BURNS, ESQ.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale 17 Three First National Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60602 18 On behalf of Gary Miller:
n "ICHAEL MAUPIN, ESQ.
M.
CHRISTINA HINSLEY, ESQ.
20 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 11 P.
O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23202 22 Appearing Pro Se:
MARJORIE AAMODT
(
)
200 North Church Street 78 Parksburg, Pennsylvania 4.34edef 3 elerorteet, aset i
^5i 4
'I
I 1
0440'0I 01 l
3 I
DAVbur 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
JUDGE KELLEY:
Good morning, ladies and i
j 3
gentlemen.
l 4
My name is James Kelley, Chairman of this Board.
i l
l 5
To my left is Judge Glenn Bright.
On my right is Judge i
l l
I l
6 Jerry Kline.
7 The three of us comprise the presiding Board in 8
the matter of the inquiry into the Three Mile Island Unit 2 l
l l
9 Leak Rate Data Falsification proceeding that was set in i
10 l motion by the Commission's order and notice of hearing of 11 December 18, 1985.
l 12 We are here this morning pursuant to this Board's 13 '
order of February 14., calling for this prehearing.
14 conference.
15 As a first order of business I would like to have l
16 the introduction of counsel, starting with Staff counsel on 17,
the left.
l 1
18 MR. GOLDBERG:
My name is Jack Goldberg.
With me i
19 l is Mary Wagner.
We are counsel for the NRC Staff.
l c
20 !
MR. BLAKE:
Judge Kelley, my name is Ernest i
21 j Blake.
I am with the firm of Shaw, Pittman,'Potts &
22 Trowbridge, here in Washington.
l 23 on te.y left is Patrick Hickey, also of that firm.
1 24 We represent GPU Nuclear.
25 MR. VOIGT:
G<tod morning, gentlemen.
I am Harry ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nation *ide Coserase Mk334%4
0440 01 02 4
~
(-,,) DAvbur i
Voigt, from the firm of LeBoeuf,. Lamb, Leiby & MacRae,
~
i 2
representing numerous former employees of Metropolitan 3
Edison.
4 With me at the table this morning are my partner, l
5 Michael McBride and Mr. Smith B. Gephart, from the firm of 6,
Killian & Gephart, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
They are i
l 7l co-counsel.
i 1
8 MR. BURNS:
My name is Jim Burns.
I am with the 2
l
?
law firm of Isham, Lincoln & Beale.
We represent Jack I
i j
10 Herbine in this proceeding.
l 11 MR. MAUPIN:
My name is Mike Maupin, with the 12 !
firm of Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Virginia.
With me this i
f(
L3 morning is Chris Hinsley.
Together we represent Gary
]
14 j Miller.
15lj JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
i 16 l MS. AAMODT:
Good morning, Judge Kelley and l
l 17 1 Board.
I am Marjorie Aamodt.
I am representing myself.
l i
18 '
I didn't know where you wanted me to sit in this 19 proceeding.
r 20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Why don't you come on up, 21 )
Ms. Aamodt.
(
L 22 Thank you.
[
l l
23 j Is Mr. Lewis here this morning?
24 Mr. Lewis was the other person who filed a t
i 25.
petition to intervene.
That is why I inquired.
I i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800.JJMM4
0440 01 03 l
5 l
-s (jDAVbur 1
I will first acknowledge for the record the L
2 things that we have received since our order of February i
3 14.
4 We received a response from Mr. Voigt on behalf 5
of the numerous employees.
6 We received commerits from Mr. Maupin on behalf of l
7 l Mr. Miller.
8 We received a response from Ms. Aamodt in 9
response to questions we had raised in our order.
10 i We also received a response from Mr. Lewis, also 11 l l
in response to questions we raised in our order.
12 MR. VOIGT Judge Kelley?
!7 C/
13!
JUDGE KELLEY:
Excuse me.
14 l MR. VOIGT:
You said you got something from 15 !
Ms. Aamodt?
I 16l JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
I 17 !
!!R. VOIGT:
I don't believe the parties have 18 l received that.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Just a moment.
20.
(Pause.)
i 21 '
Were the other parties sorved, Ms. Aamodt?
22 MS. AA!!ODT:
I did not because of the time.
I I
23 served the deckating service, and generally General Public 24 Utilities checks that filing there.
I presumed that they l
25 ;
picked it up.
1 i
1 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationekle Coverage
- k336MM
0440 01 04 l
6
[JDAVbur 1
I am sorry.
I really should have served the.
m 2j parties.
I apologize for that.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
Why don't we in this 4
circumstance -- I think we will be apoaking with you later 5J about your filing, but we can do that later and perhaps 6
arrange for xeroxing of it now and give it to the parties.
7l It is fairly short.
8 MR. BURNS:
Your Honor, I believe we filed a very 9!
short statement as well as to the conflict question that you 10 raised in your order.
I hope you received it.
We filed it 11,
several days ago.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
We should have.
('(_)
13 '
MR. HURNS:
It is in letter form, your Honor.
14 l JUDGE KELLEY:
It just didn' t get to me.
It 15 i sounds like a slip in service, Mr. Burns, internally in the i
16l NRC.
I don't have it.
F 17 Would you happen to have a copy?
l 18h MR. BURNS:
I will see.
We may have one.
l 19 i JUDGE KELLEY:
We will take a moment to arrange 20,
for a copy.
21 l (Pause.)
I 22 !
We are having Ms. Aamodt's petition copiad and 4
I 23 distributed, and perhaps we will defer any discussion until 24 after the break.
(_/
I 25 j We would like to simply recite briefly for the I
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 02 347 3700 Na' ion a hje Coverage Mn 336 %ui a
l 0440 01 05 7
-( ]) DAVbur 1
record what the Board did by way of getting notice out on f
'2 this proceeding to potentially interested people, j
3 particularly people who had been involved in one way or 4
another.
l 5
The Commission order of the lath was served on L
6 the TMI restart service list.
So I suspect that most of you 7
here today at least heard about it that way.
8 This Board then wrote a covering letter, and we
[
asked the Staff to help us compile a list of employees or 9
10 former employees who might have been involved in leak rate t
l 11 testing or at least were aware of it, and this list was 12 deliberately on the comprehensive side.
i
()
13 i It ran 120 plus employees or former employees of i
14 GPU or former employees of Met Ed, and we did serve our
(
15 i letter in the Commission's order by certified mail on all of r
16' those people.
17 !
As you know, we got back the petitions that we 1
j 18 j got back, but in terms of getting notice out we did 'get the i
19 i green slip back from the Post Office on all but about a l
\\
r l
20 <
dozen people.
We then made efforts to find new addresses I
(
21,
for those people and were successful in most cases, i
i l
22 '
So we remailed to them with an extended timo to s
23 j petition if they should do so with those with whom'we were t
24 unsuccessful in reaching by mail.
We asked the Staff to 4
25 check and determine whether any of them were currently l
l i
l l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 3 2 347 3700 Nationwufe Coverage NJ0-334MA6 j
I 0440 01 06 8
()DAVbur 1
licensed operators.
2 That was true in only one case, a gentleman who 3
is now working for GPU, as I understand it, and I asked 4l Mr. Blake to effect service on him, a gentleman named Boyd, 5
I believe.
That was done, and he did not petition to I
i 6:
intervene.
Mr. Blake indicated he was not interested in so l
7j petitioning.
8i So we felt, having done that, that we made a l
9 f sufficient effort to put out notice.
l l
10 j Do any of the parties that we have left some 11 i person unreached, or is there some other step you think we l
12 l ought to take?
C(m 13f (No response.)
I 14 i JUDGE KELLEY:
If I hear silence -- if it is 4
s 15.
possible to hear silence -- thank you, i
16 j In our order of February 14th -- we want to 17 mention this as a thrcsheid matter -- we did raise a series 18 !
of questions that were directed specifically to counsel for 19 the numerous employees having to do with multiple I
20 representation and what the arrangeuents had been with 21 l respect to them to make sure that there weren't going to be k
22 l conflicts arising that would cause problems.
23 We did receive a very full response f rom 24 Mr. Voigt, which we appreciate.
He do believe that the
<s t
)
V 25 arrangements that have been described are appropriate to the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 34*.3700 Nationwide Courage 8 % 33 N
1 0440 01 07 9
I
()DAVbur 1l circumstances of this case and taeet generally applicable 1
2 standards for representation of multiple clients.
So the i
l l
3 '
Board's concerns on that score have been answered.
4 We do feel that it was important to have that 5
information.
We didn't specifically ask other counsel for H
6 statements, but we did receive an extensive statement from l
i l
7l Mr. Maupin.
He filed a statement describing his employment I
i 8
relationship with Mr. Miller and Mr. Miller's end of the i
9 arrangement with Met Ed.
i 10 Similarly, the Board believes that these 1
l 11 l arrangements are appropriate, and we appreciate the l
12 information.
.()'
13' Mr. Burns, I think, indicated they had filed 14 l something-to me, but they had a service or a receipt l
l 15 !
problem.
16 MR. BURNS:
Right.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Is that along the same lines 7 18 l MR. BURNS:
Yes, it is.
i 19 For the record, your Honor, our arrangement is 20 '
essentially the same as Mr. Maupin's.
l 21 l JUCGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
We will get the mail l
l 22 i eventually.
I 23 MS. AAMODT:
Judge Kelley, I did not receive 1
24 those filings f rom Mr. Voigt or Mr. !!aupin.
I don't know l
l 25 l whether it is because they would be arriving late in the i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationside Cosetage Mo3346M4
0440 01 08 10
('DAVbur
)
1 mail, but if allowed to participate in the hearing I do have 2
some comment that I would like to make.
Eut I would prefer 3
.to make it after I caw those filings, i
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Very well.
i 5
MR. VOIGT:
. Judge Kelley, our response was served 6
by first class mail on March 3, addressed to Ms. Aamodt, at 7
200 North Church Street, Parksburg, Pennsylvania.
8 Is that your current address?
9 l MS. AAMODT:
That is our address, but I was at i
10 l Lake Placid, New York this past week, and that is perhaps l
11 why it has been long in coming.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Had you supplied us with the Lake 1
/~3
(_)
13 3 Placid address, Ms. Aamodt?
14 MS. AAMODT:
I did in my last brief, my comments 15,
to you.
I did have a footnote in that comment.
16 f JUDGE KELLEY:
But I don' t believe Mr. Voigt 1
1 17 i received that.
18 l In any event, gentlemen, if you happen to have an l
19 l e.ttra copy with you of tnose filings, would you give 20
'Ms. Aamodt a copy at the break?
h-21 Yes?
22 MR. MAUPIN:
Judge Kelley, at the risk cf saying 23 l more on a subject on which I have probably already said coo 24 !
much, let me address page 2 of the affidavit that I O
l 25 j submitted with Mr. Miller's comments.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase e 6 336 4 4
I I
0440'01 09 11
(
DAVbur 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Very well.
2 MR. MAUPIN:
One of my fellow lawyers in the room 3
.has pointed out that there is a sentence there at the end of 4
the carryover paragraph that says, "I told him" -- Miller --
5 "that if he were to retain me, my sole professional 6
obligation in connection with Three Mile Island matters 7
would be to him."
8 That statement might have been more accurate --
l 9l would have been more accurate had I said "Three Mile Island i
10 i leak rate matters."
11 I have since the time struck an attorney / client 12,
relationship with Mr. Miller and been retained by another
()
13 individual employed by GPU Nuclear to represent him on a 14,
matter that I am satisfied is sufficiently separated from 15 l the leak rate matter that it doesn' t represent any 16 !
significant potential conflict.
17,
I have secured both the new client's and 18 !
Mr. Miller's consent to tnat arrangement.
i 19 l JUDGE KELLEY:
Very well.
Could you indicate l
20 !
just generally what the other matter concerns?
' 21 !
MR. MAUPIN:
The other matter involves a client, 22 an employee, who testified in what have com.e to be kncun as i
t 23':
the cheating hearings in 1981, involving cheating on an 24 l examination, an NRC examination, given at Three Mile i
25 f Island.
t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3X0 NatiorwiJe Cosetage 8n0 336-6646
0440 01 10 12
_f")DAVbur 1
The result of that case, as it affected this ss 2'
particular client, consisted in an order issued by.the 3
Appeal Board that had the effect of restricting the kinds of 4
career opportunities that he might have with this company.
5 He has been granted a hearing by the Commission
.6
-de novo on those issues.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
There doesn't appear to be much 8 !
relationship, if any, between the two matters, as I think 9!
you indicated.
]
10 Thank you very much.
11 Ms. Aamodt may want to comment later, but subject 12 I to that, we think that the exposure is satisfactory.
We
()
13 h appreciate it.
14 l i
In our order of February 14th, which we did admit I
15 l as parties numerous employees -- I believe it is 25 f
16 employees plus Mr. Kidwell, who is also represented by
+
17 Mr. Voigt and his associates, partners -- we have admitted 18 l separately Mr. Herbine and Mr. Miller and GPU --
19 Let me asx you, Mr. Blake, what is your preferred I
20 acronym?
l 21 l MR. BLAKE:
GPU Nuclear, or GPUN.
22 "l JUDGE KELLEY :
Is GPUN acceptable?
Thank you.
h t
23 i
-- subject only to the possibility that l
I 24 '
objections might be filed with reference to those petitions,
(
I l
25 j and we have left that open because we did not in our I
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 3174700 Nationwide Coserage 8004 4 %:6
0440 01'll 13 DAVbur 1
original letter, at'least, explicitly refer to objections.
2 So we thought we would give an opportunity for that to be 3
done.
4 That did not happen.
No objections have been 5
filed, so that the parties.I just named.have been admitted 6
as' parties without any condition.
7 I We received in addition petitions to intervene 1
8 from Ms. Aamodt and also from Mr. Martin Lewis.
9 We felt in our review of the initial petitions 10 '
that we had questions both with regard to whether a 11 sufficient demonstration of interest had been made within 12 the meaning of the Commission's order -- and I strecs that 13 latter phrase -- and also on the score of speciftes on h'w a o
14 contribution to the record might be mado.
15 !
Therefore, we invited Mr. Lewis and Ms. Aamodt to I
16 l file another petition.
There was also an objection to the 17 original Aamodt petition from the numerous employees raising i
18 !
some similar issues.
l 19 We have now received two responses I have already 20 referred to.
Ms. Aamodt is here.
Mr. Lewis is not.
21 With regard to Mr. Lewis, I am simply going to 22 take his petition under advisement and in an order to issuo, 23 I believe shortly, we will make a ruling on that.
I 24 Ms. Aamodt, let me make a couple general
.O 25 i observations, and then if you want to respond to those or l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-(446
1 I
I 0440 01 12 14
(])DAVbur 1
elaborate on your petition, you may do so.
2l Well, let me backtrack on that, though.
We don't i
3 L have your petition distributed, and I said not five minutes 4
ago we would wait on that point.
l 5t So let me retract what I said about moving ahead l
l 6
now and contemplate that we would talk with you and you 7
could talk with us.
Parties may wish to comment after a
(
8 f coffee break we will be taking at some later point in the l
9j morning.
l l
10 In the meantime you are free to participate in I
11 j the discussions.
1 l
12 j We have these copies now, I believe.
L,()
13 Before getting into a discussion of the remarks 14 that we put forward in our order and other points we may 15 l want to get to, we want to pass on to you information that l
l 16 [
we received just yesterday with regard to the investigation, i
i 17 l if you want to call it that.
That has been underway for 18 i some time, being developed jointly by the NRC Staf f and the
[
19 [
Of fice of Investigations with regard to leak rate matters.
I 20 l We, I think, dropped a footnote in the order l
[
21 expressing our hope and expectation that that document would 22 !
ce ready by new so that it could be factored into the case.
3 l
23 We were advised yesterday by the Office of Investigations as 24 i follows:
1 C:)
l l
25 This is the status of that document.
It is i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3 7)0 Nationwide Coverge 800 136-6646
~
0440 01 13 15 DAVbur 1
written in final form.
i 2 3 It is at this particular time, even as we speak I 1
3l am told, being reviewed by the Office of the General i
I 4
Counsel, which is, I think, a routine process they go 5' I through.
6 And following the signoff by that office, it will 7
go to the Commission, and in the normal course of events it 8
would be before the Cotamission for a minimum of five 9
' business days.
Depending upon how extensive it is, it could 10 be lo nge r.
I 11 We make a point of this because it occurs to us 12 that it could well -- we think probably will right now --
l ()
13 affect the scheduling of matters to happen in the immediate 14;l future.
Our reasoning is simply this:
i 15 {
Let's say, for example, that we were to go ahead 16 l and you were going to on behalf of your clients -- would be i
17 '
preparing testimony that is responsive, say, to the stier's l
18 1 report.
We would want you at the same tiine to address I
l 19 !
whatever you believe you should address in the joint report 20 1 that I just referred to.
21 It doesn't, based on what we know about it, seem 22 !
very feasible to launch this hearing and speak to the Stier 4
23 i report and then turn around a month from now and start 24 speaking to some other report.
l 25 i If it were just a sort of collateral report or i
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, I
g.3 g;.3700 Nationwide Coverag; W-336-(M4
0440 01 14 16 hDAVbur-1 a minor report, we might very well suggest that we go ahead 2
and somehow factor that in later, but we understand it to be 1
3' something more substantial than that, and I should add we 4
haven't seen it, we haven't read it, we don't know very much 5
about it.
6 But it is a significant report, we are told, and 7
beyond that it is not something that can be parceled out in i
1 8.I pieces.
9!
10 i
11 12-13 14 !
15 i i
l 16 i
.l 17 l
18 l 1
F 19 i
20 '
i J '
21 I
22 l 23
!~
'i I
]
j 25 '
l i
i
~ ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3100 Nationwide Cowage 400-)NM6
0440 02 01 17 DAVbur 1
So at this stage we simply have to advise you 2
that that is where it is, that we are hopeful that it will 3
be available for distribution in the near future but it is 4
not today, and quite frankly I don't think it will be next 5
week.
6)
I think about all we can say is that we will get 7,
in touch with you promptly as soon as we have significant i
8 l intelligence to pass on, hopefully on its availability.
l 9 l What it means in terms of today's discussion, it needn't i
10 j i.npede our discussion of a lot of things.
11 But rather than saying, for example, all right, 12 i the Board will issue an order next week and will take some O
u !
eeher step some specific dav efter thee, we are ooino to I
14 l have to talk in terms of steps and intervals between steps, I
15 i but step 1 can't happen until we have this report.
16 l That is, I think, about what we have to say on it 17 this morning.
I 18 '
If there are qu<sstions on this particular point, 19 I may not be able to answer them, but is it clear what I 20 have said?
21 Okay, Mr. Voigt?
22 MR. VOIGT:
I think what you have said is clear, 23j and I just want to take a moment to agree very strongly with 24 !
what you have said.
O 25 :
We know that NRR and OI interviewed at least 15 j
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
02 34*.3700 Natson*ide Coverage
- n)36-MM
0440 02 02 18 l
/
(
) DAVbur 1
or 20 people.
Some of them were interviewed by Mr. Stier, ws 2,
some were not.
3' So you are going to get some information in that 4
report that is not available in other reports.
5 It was also evident during the course of the 6 f investigation that the Staff had done a very impressive 7i amount of technical analysis which may or may not agree with
)
8 some of the technical analysis that Mr. Stier and his 9l associates have performed, and I am assuming that the 10 ;
technical analysis will also be reflected in thcir report.
11 So I think there can be no doubt that this will 12 l be a key document in terms of f urther proceedings.
p)
(_
13 '
JUDGE KELLEY:
Any other comment?
l 14 j (No response.)
l 15 JUDGE KELLEY:
In that regard we will keep you 16l posted.
.i 17 I might juet add that I have told the General 1
18 4 Counsel's Office that I understood the way things stood but i
19l that they had to understand that this hearing was probably 20 going to be held up until we had that report.
That was the 21 j message that I indicated we would convoy.
22 ;
I think we might next usefully spsak to sone of 23 '
the points that we raised in our prehearing order and on I
i l
24 '
which we got responses from a few of the parties, and we a r. -
s sJ
\\
l 25,
prepared to be a little open-ended and get into other thingn i
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
200-347 3*U)
Natkmwide Coverage Nn)%M46
0440 02 03 l
19 I
DAVbur 1
people are interested in, consistent with fairness to the 2l parties and with other considerations.
But let us do that.
3 I think I should mention, though, that in our 4
laundry list of eight or nine items that we put in that 5
crder two things.
Some of those things we feel probably 6
aren't amenable to a lot more discussion this morning.
7l Skipping down to things like use of prior '
8 statements, we would like to have a much better handle on 9
what prior statements there are before we start arguing 10 l about the use they will be put to.
11,
It is perfectly appropriate to have us on notice 12 now.
The parties have genera) latitude for that. area, but O
13 !
we den e expect to meke e iet ef groorese en use retes.
so i
14,
to speak.
15 !
We would like to make a lot of progress on how we 16 l are going to round out these statements and how we might 17 stipulate to what anybody wants in or out and things of that 18 l nature.
19 I might also ooserve that we are frank
.o say 20 i that procedurally in this case we are to some extent feeling 21 l our way along.
I am not aware that the NRC has ever run a I
22 l proceeding quite like this.
We are all, I think, accust.cmed 23 to the Part 2 proceedings, where the rules of the game are 24 l pretty clear or at least the options are clear.
Here it O
25 tends to get a little less clear.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202 347 3*00 Nationwide Coverage M33W
l l
1 0440 02 04 l
20
- O o^vder 1
we ere ootao to be retuceeat to 3 mo to 2l conclusions on procedural issues before we have to, 3l co.tsistent with, again, notice and fairness to the parties, l
4 I
and I think it is also quite possible, as we get into this 5
case, if we tried one approach and we think it doesn' t work i
6j we night change it, again on notice to parties.
l 7I But having said that, our commenters, Mr. Voigt 8i and Mr. Maupin, on the general subject of schedule, they l
l 9.l thought we were being a little optimistic.
I think the 1
l j
10 Board thinks so, too, as a general matter, particularly in 11 light of our not having the Staff OI report here this 12 l morning.
l 13h But we wanted to give you something to think l
I l
14 )
about in terms of the target, and it seems to be receding a l
15 l little bit.
l 16 j Mr. Voigt had a specific suggestion about l
1 17 bifurcating what we call Part 1 of the hearing, whereby we j
18.
would first hear some background testimony, if you will, and I
19 l with that behind us go up to Three Mile Island and.do a view
. 20 !
of the relevant parts of the premises, presumably the l
21 l control room and some other pa ts to provide a concrete 22 l context in watch the i3 card and parties could then address
]
23 the testimony of the particular witnesses.
i 24 j
So then after the field trip we would then move l
\\
l 1
j 25,
to testimony of parties, at least, perhaps others.
That l
j I
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 MG)
Nmonwide Coverage 80L33MM6 i
i 1
0440 02 05 21
( ]) DAvbur 1
struck us as a rather good id ea.
]
2 Why don' t we just go around the table for l
3 reactions?
1 4
Mr. Blake?
5 MR. BLAKE:
We don't.have any problem with 6
starting this affair with a good,' solid, common technical 7
basis and therefore have no objection to Mr. Voigt's idea of 8
starting with the technical witnesses to educate all of us.
9, The need for the tour is somewhat subjective.
We 10 l will certainly host a tour if that is what the Board wants.
11 I would caution you that it may be somewhat of a letdown, 12,
for the purposes of this proceeding, if you go into the
()
13 control room where not everything'has continued to work or 1
- 14 l h'as been required to be maintained, and I don't know l
15 '
physically about access to anything else related to leak j
16 rate.
1 l
17 That is something which the Board might want to J
f do.
We will certainly accommodate the Board's wishes, but I j
18 19 !
am not sure in the context of this proceeding that it is i
l 20 going to be as fruitful maybe as at first blush it might i
i 21 li seem.
i 22 i But we will certainly accommodat's you.
l 23l JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
24,
.Mr.
Burns?
1 1
25 <
MR. BURMS:
We have no objection.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147 3700 -
Naticamide Covetav MO 3WM6
0440 02 06 22 DAVbur 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Maupin?
Ms. Aamodt?
2l MS. AAMODT:
I would hate to become so involved I
in that kind of an exercise.
I think that the purpose of 3
4 the hearing is to determine culpability of individuals.
I 5
think that the Commission has ruled that these are not l
6ll allegations but these are acts, culpable acts, that were 7l committed, and our purpose here is to identify those who 8l were culpable, and I am rather disappointed to hear that the I
t 9l NRR and OI have only interviewed 15 to 20 individuals when there were so many more individuals that could likely have I
10 i
i 11 !
been involved.
l i
12 l' I am looking at some of the interviews that have l
O u!
been done by Mr. su e ene by the nRC steff, the I.E.
thet 14 ;
were provided to OI, and looking also at the Department of 15 Justice findings, and things just don't match up.
The truth j
k 16 {
is not being told.
l l
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
I expect we will get to that, but 18l my proposition right now is whether we are going to I
i 19 i Harrisburg or not and look at the control room.
L i
20 Ms. AAMoDT:
Well, I am not interested in a tour f
21 l of the plant.
I don't feel that it would add to my I
22 h information.
l 1
23l I certainly have no objections, but I wouldn't
?
t 24 like to see a lot of time wasted that way, since I feel, O'
3 i
i 25 from being involved in the cheating hearing, that we did
[
i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347.)?00 Nationwide Coverase Mrk)Mwas
l 0440 02 07 23 i
fl DAVbur 1,!
wasto a lot of timo, and when we finally got to the v
2j operators we got information that moved that hearing in the 3
direction of finding important evidence.
4 But I do think wo nood to datormine what kind of i
5) a crime essentially we are talking about.
I 6l JUDGE KELLEY:
Ms. Aamodt, right now we aro just l
7 talking about the fiold trip.
Now, we may get to t.heso 8
other things, but I don't really see the relevance of your 9 )
comment.
10 l MS. AAMODT:
I am saying that there are technical 11 l reports by the Department of Energy, and the NRC 12 commissioned to have one done on the leakiness of this
(
- 13 l plant.
There is a position that thoro were otner means I
14 j which the operators could use to scan for unidentified 15 leakage.
16,
I think this is an important point.
If the 17 operators had other means so that they fool they could 18 i dismiss this test, then maybe we oro looking at are th9y l
19 culpable of a whito 110.
20 f If this was truly a very leaky plant and they did 21.
not have other means of scanning for leakage, then what we 22 have here then is a much more crininal act, and I think if 23 l we are to determino the ultimato fato of theso ind iv id u sin,
24 i we havo to determino what exactly they did.
O f
v^J 25 l JUDGE KELLEY:
That is the purpose of the i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- x.w.no tw m.,aaco m e mum
- w. -
0440 02 08 24 CDAvbur 1
hearing, right?
2 Okay.
3 MS. AAMODT So in that regard, I think technical 4
information is helpful, but I don't think in just that 5
limited regard.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
7 The question of location.
The comments that we 8
received f avored the idea of hearings in D.C., presumably 9l here, subject to the possibility in a particular case of i
10j needing to go elsewhere.
11 But in terms of just the next step in what wo 12 have started to call Phase I of, at least the technical 13 1 part, the presentation of background evidence from the Staff 14 and perhaps from*others, we would think that would be here.
I 15 l I gather from the filings that the numerous 16[
employees, for example, would be willing to come down, one 17 l at a time, but to come down here for a hearing rather than 18 Pennsylvania.
19 MR. GEPHART:
That is correct.
I 20 ;
JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Gephart.
21 So that was the Commission's obvious preferenco, 22 L anyway.
So we certsinly hope we could hold open the 23,
possibility of holding parts of the hearing somowhere else, i
24 l but we expect to be here, by and large.
l O
23 Thu questions of witnessos' profinal testimony I
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147 3700 Nauon*We Coverage Mn)M-%M
l i
0440 02 09 25 3
(')DAVbur 12 and what goes in the record in the way of documentary v
i 2'
evidence are sort of interrelated.
3 The documentary one, the question suoms to be the 4
more problommatic, and perhaps we will need a little moro 5
discussion.
6 Mr. Maupin pointed out that the Commistion had l
7.
sort of taken care of the witness list question in its 8
original order when it said, in offect, that the Board was 9l supposed to como up with a list of proposed witnessos.
Then l
10 the parties would be given an opportunity to supplement the i
i 11.i list.
s 12 )
So it appears to us that the initiative is with 13 the Board to como up wit.h a list of proposed witnessos.
I 14 j As we were talking yesterday, it seemed to us l
15j thst tha* was just about the triggering first ovent, the 16 !
Doard's list of witnocsos, in the senso that you don' t know 17 who you are calling till we tell you who we think you ought 18 j to call.
That will tie in with whatever documentary 19 l evidence you are going to put in, also.
20l So what we would suggest, subject to any comment 21 '
to th s contrary, is that we will be reviewing such things as h
22 l Scior, such other sour:os as may be either agreed upon or i
23 rulod upon to be a legitimato part of the record, and l
24 '
extracting witnessos there, perhaps sone other placos, but O
25,
in any event coming up with a list which you can react to.
l l
i ACE FEDERAL. REPORTERS. INC.
202.)47 3700 Natoneide Coverage Mrk)34 (M4
0440 02 10 26 l Oo^ veer 1
ru e r woei.a tai =* wo#ta oo s
et et r w-i 2
have got the Staff OI report.
We can go ahead in the 3
meantime and work with other things, like material from 4
Stier, but we will do that at least initially, and when we 5
got that out before you, then I would think the other steps 6
could start to happen.
l 7
Does that soom reasonable?
Does anybody disagree 8
with that?
l 9
(No responso.)
l 10,
JUDGE KELLEY:
On the question of whether it l
11 ought to be prefiled, we thought so, and so did the L
12 ;I commenters.
There may be a subpoenaed witnoss where that is 13 dif forent, obviously, but generally cpeaking, whun the
[
14 parties ccme to testify, we would expect prefiled, and the i
l I
15 !
same with the NRC Staf f, and that will be the general rule.
i 16 i I hear no dissent from that.
I 17 l Tho question of documents.
This case is a l
l 18 '
little bit unusual in that we do have these preexisting 19 !
reports which I believe have generally been publicly
[
l 20 !
available.
One thinks of a licensing case, you walk in with s
21 l a bare desk and they start to be introduced.
22 Hero we havs the Stier report, wich its multiple l
23 backup volumes.
We have boon provided with copion of -- I
\\
l 24 ;
think I correctly callod it -- the GPU assosament report.
i 25 l Is that r ig h t, Mr. Blake?
l l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t
- o2.w.nar nan uacomo.<
wnwu
- i. 0440 02 11 27 l
.Ooav===
1 aa atax==
^
e eat 9 # 1-2 JUDGE KELLEY:
There will be the NRC St.If OI 3
report, and we have the first two.
We expect the third.
We 4
understand that others either have those or they are 5
publicly available.
6' Let us try a proposition on you.
We can get 7l comments.
We have had some difforent comments from the two 8
that have spoken to it.
9j I believe Mr. Voigt expressed opposition to any i
10,
use of the assessment panel, and I won't try to restate your.
11 position on Stier.
j 12 Mr. Maupin's position was, I believe, that the, l
13 GPU assessmedt panel doesn't represent independent 14 l investigative work, but if you want to took at it that is i
15 l all right, and by all means look ac the Stier report.
16 What this led us to was the idea that what we I
l 17 might do as a Board is simply list several sources of 1
18 l existing documentary information and then simply say to the 19 parties: if you object to any of this material or you object i
i 20 for a limited purpose, whatever, if you have any objection i
21,
file it.
22 h For example, if you don' t have any problem with I
j 23 che Stier report, including all its appendices, that would 24 i simply be part of the record, at least for reference.
That 25 f isn't to say the Board is actually going to rely or ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Natumeide Coversse MC 3 MMM
~
i
'0440 02 12 28
()DAvbur 1
scrutinize closely every page, bu' that it is at least in 2
the record for our consideration.
3, If on the other hand you want to object to 4
portions of the Stier report, some of the interviews, 5
whatever you may want to object to, then you can say that 6
and say why, and we can have rulings on those objections.
7 The same would be true of the OI NRC report when 8
available.
9i The assessment report -- what you' referred to --
l 10 could you toll us about Fagar & Benson?
11 MR. VOIGT Fagar & Benson is a large, prominant 12 law firm headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota.
They were
()
13 retained by Metropolitan Edison shortly after the Hartman 1
14l allegations became public in 1980 to conduct an independent 15 l inquiry concerning the Hartman allegations.
16 l I believe that one of the reasons that that l
i 17 particular firm was chosen was because two of their 18 attorneys had been counsel to the Kemeny Commission, but in 19 any event, they were given that assignment.
They received a i
20 substantial amount of technical assistance from engineers 21 l and other people, from either Met Ed or GPU, and they 22 preparad a fairly comprehensive analysis of what Hart:aan had 23 alleged -- how the leak rato test was administered, what tha i
24 '
technical specifications required, what the administrativo O
i i
25 '
procedures required, and so forth.
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20234747(o Nat6onwide Coverage NWh)Ss4
f.
0440 02 13 29 O DAVbur 1
They did not comment up n or rsach any 2
conclusions concerning individual culpability, and that was 3
at least in part because people were being called before the 4
grand jury at the very same time that Fagar & Benson were 5l trying to prepare their report, and they recognized the 6
difficulty of trying to go out and interview individual 7
witnesses in the same timeframa that these same witnesses 1
l were being subpoenaed to give testimony. before a federal 8
9 grand jury in a criminal investigation.
10 i so you don't have in Fagar & Benson a lot of 1
11 individual witness statements or an analysis of who did what 12 to who.
()
f 13 What you do have, in our view, is a very 14 competent, thoughtful baseline dccument that analyzes the 15 p background and the technical requirements and the way the L
16 machinery worked and how the tests worked or didn't work.
17 !
And acide from the fact that we think it is a 18 I good report, it has the virtue of having been written more 19 or less in the present tense.
20 The tracks were still there, unlike some of the 21 subsequent work that has been done, which has obviously been 22 p handicapped by the fact that five, six, seven years have 23 gone by before the investigators got starting to look at 24 {
things.
25 l l
1 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347.)*G)
Nationwide Cover 2se MG-))6-M
I i
i 0440 03 01 1
30
\\
(^N
()DAVbw 1
So we have suggested that the Board permit or 2
require the submission of the Pagar & 7enson report, and 3
f urthe rmore, that you considar requesting or requiring one 4
of the people who holped to write that report, to come in as 5
a witness.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
Just physically, is 7l this report an executive summary and **olumes of exhibits?
8l What does it look like?
9f MR. VOIGT:
I'm holding up, for the Board's view i
it says it's three volumes, but there's a Volume 3-A and 10 11 a Volume 3-B.
Those contain s11 of the exhibits.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
I just wanted to get an
(~T j
\\ >
13 ;
idea.
i 14 MR. VOIGT:
There is a Volume 1, which is an 15 l overview, and a volume 2, which is a technical analysis.
l 16 i JUDGE KELLEY:
Do the other parties have this I
i 17 particular report already?
So overybody but the Doard has i
18 !
the Fagar & Benson report.
I 19,
( La ug hte r. )
20 i JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
We can simply include the i
21 l Fagar & Dencon report in our list of propoaed documents, and 22 if anybody wants to object, they can do so.
l 23 '
MR. VOIGT:
I think that would bo fine.
I was j
24 just going to point out that I think that the Fagar & Benson
-)
~j q
25 l report is on the docket in the Unit 1 proceeding.
i l
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
J
- o: 3r.3m>
%non.ide coverage m1wwo L
0440 03 02 31 Oo^va-3ooos xe " s
ox r-th "x vo"-
2 So the proposition we're making, just to restate, 3
is that just as we put out a list of witnesses, we would put l
4 out a list of documentary material, which would include the 5
items we have spoken of.
1 understand -- well, I know that 6
in addition, the Staff has various documents that underlie 7
their various investigations into this matter, and I would 8
assume we would include a listing of those, plus, at least, l
9 availability of the papers, so they could be considered by 10 i the parties and objected to or not, along with the Stier I
11 Report and the others.
12 But is there any problem with the approach that O
u we re suaoesano oc pueun2 out a use ex comme,e and l
14 1 objection?
l 15 j (No response.)
16l Thank you.
17 i One of the next issues that we raised was use of 18 l prior statements.
We appreciate that this is a mattor --
19 I over many years of investigation by many different people, a i
20 j lot of people have been interviewed multiple times.
21 Now a fair chunk of those prior interviews will 22 l be incorporated in some of the various reports, not. ably, l
23 Stier, the appendices where that is all set forth.
That is 24 !
one category of prior statnents.
O I'
25 i As the Staff, Jack Goldberg, has doncribed to me, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3)2.}47 370)
Nationwide Coveuge Mn))4fM4
l 0440 01 03 32 Co^vew 1!
ehere re, ta eaattio#, reeaer teroe a#=dere oe art -
2l interviews locatol in various placos, including the Staff 3
filos, and I guosa the Rogovin Report and the Kemony 4
Report.
I don't know where all else.
I dare say you 5
gentlemen know more about that than wo do.
6 But the point we want to establish -- and correct l
7 us if we are wrong -- there are an awful lot of copius of l
8 prior interviews out thoro somewhero, including your filos l
l 9
and other places.
Jack tells me that they had a similar, 10j initially, at least, logistical problem in the Mailgram i
11 ligitation, and they took the approach -- and Jack, correct l
12 me, if I'm wrong, but I undorstand that the approach there 13l was to cook a stipulation among counsel and other partlos, l
i 14,
whereby they would como out with a list of prior statomonts I
15 !
that. they wanted to give.
Thon those statements woro pialled 16 together and Xoroxod, and then thoro was a bound volume of 17 stipulated prior statoments, if you will, which were used in 18,
the caso.
l 19 Is that more or loss what happonud, Jack?
l 1
20 !
MR. GOLDBERG Yos.
I 21 JUDGE KELt.EY:
I guess wo just note that for tho l
22l Board's part, we, at least at this stage, would not wsnt to i
23 '
be in the position of saying that that'u what wo, the I
24 Board, would want to look at.
It would bo just a list of l
l l O 25 j statomnts that the parties think the Board ought to look ACE. FEDERAL REPORTens, INC.
- e:. m.n m Nu.on *ide owmp m11um
l 0440 03 04 33 Oo^va~
ti at, and that we might want to go beyond the list at somo 2
point, at least, as an initial matter to make this a little 3
more manageable, and so that other parties know what is l
4l before the house.
It struck us as useful to ask the parties l
5 to pull together the statomonts they know about that they 6
want, and we will chock with the Staf f, if you wi1h, or l
7 other sources, and then if you can simply stipulato on uso, 1
l 8 1 that is fino.
And thare aro dicagreemonts, the Board I
i l
9 obviously will have to rule, but at least, we would have a 10 sort of manageable reference sourco.
i t
11j How doos that strike you, Mr. Voigt?
12l MR. VOIGT I think the idea is a good one.
It 13 is going to be a big job, and one of the problems is that wo l
l 14 ;
have clients who have litorally boon interviewed 30 or 40 15 !
times.
tiow most of those interviews have nothing to do with r
16 i leak rates.
They have to do with primarily the accident or i
17,
procursors to the accident, or what nappened in the first i
18 j couple of wooks after the accident.
19 ;
I think, in gonoral, wo have the ability to 20 distinguish among those statomonts, but thor 9 is going to bo 21 i some sorting process involved just becauso of that.
22 l The other contern which I havo would no that wo l
23 could -- and I bullove, probably should try to draw up a I
i l
24 :
naster list, but I wouldn't want to loavo the improsnion l
l l
2sl enat in doing that, we felt that alt of tho44 documents woe, 1
1 1
1 Acn. FEDERAL REPon rEns, INc.
ww.m
. sewn.ae cnnu, om s,m l
0440 03 05 34
(
DAVbw 1
relevant or admissiblo or anything elso.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
A mastor list, yes, I think would 3
be useful, as it's boon described, on a best ef forts basis, 4
if you come in and you say, those are the ones I know abouc, 5l and then you have a separate much smaller list, presumably, 6
as the ones you propose to offer.
Is that tho way it would 7'
work in your mind?
8 MR. V0fGT I would think so.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
4 10 Mr. Maupin, a comment?
11 ftR. MAUPIN:
That seems like a reasonable way to 1
12 proceed to me.
I say that, makiro the assumption that the l
13,
principal responsibility for the croation of that list would I
14 ;
fall on the lawyers who represent the largest numbers of 15 '
clients horo.
16 j JUDGE KELLEY:
Of course.
17 (Laughter. )
I 18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Burns?
19 {
MR. DURNS:
I agroo with Mr. Maupin.
20 MR. BLAKE:
I think it is a good idea, and !
21 would really suggest that we havo, I think, quite a good 22 starting point, at loint, by virtuo of Volun., 6 of the Stier 23 ;
Report.
I boliovo it is, Judge Kolley, but I havo a 24 '
detailed list that takes oight or ton pages.
I will bo O
l
(
25 i happy to sharo this memorandum with Mr. Voigt and an/ other i
i l
Acn FEDERAL REPonTEns. I.w:.
- o:.)n. n o Nuwm*idecmeaa e n me<*
l 0440 03 06 35 m
U DAVbw 1
counsel.
I think it is at least a starting point.
2 JUDGC KELLEY:
Okay.
Thank you.
i 3
Ms. Aamodt?
4 MS. AAMODT:
I have some problems with this.
I 5
go to the statomont of Attornoy Dart Quoen.
When ho spoko 6,
to Judge Rambo in the plea bargaining, he described all the 7'
investigations that had been done thus far - ~
those woro 8
the NRC investigations -- ad utter poppycock.
9 My fooling is that wo woulu waste our timo in 1
10 i going back to that information.
I think wo should sook 11 h information in this hoaring directly f rem the parties that 12 I were listed in the Dopartment of Justico investigation.
13 f Many of those ' parties -- and the Departmont of'Justico had 14 ovidently developed evidence on those parties.
The other 15 subroquent investigations, those parties have denied, and 16 ;
comobody la not telling the truth.
17I Now the Dopartmont of Justico claims that they
}
18 i had the rollable evidence, where they could havo gono i
19 against those ind iv idua ls.
I know the NRC mado a lomo 20 attempt to obtain those records.
21 Judge hambo doniod that attempt, but she did not 22 i cut off the purcuit of the recordo by tno Nnc, 2nd I think l
23 after the OI repoitt comes out and somo definition can bo 24 made as to prociaoly what information the NDC would nood to l
3 l
25 ;
ootain, or this noaring would nood to ontain, then I
\\
ACE. FEDERAL. REPoninns, INC.
m eno r..m,n.w. nnen.
www
i l
i i
O U O 03 07 36 1
DAvbw 1,
think an approach should bo made to DOJ for records, and I 2,
think thoso would bo more rollable records than the ones 3
that woro developed during the Rogovin Report and the Kemeny 4
Report.
The Rogovin Report did not even include this issuo 5
in any meaningfal say in the report.
6 So I think wo should go to DOJ.
I think we 7
should also look at the statement of facts by the attorney 8
to indicate what witnessos and what testimony would bo 9
relevant.
He citos a number of individuals -- the 10 superintendent of technical support, and so on.
I see in 11 subsequent interviews with the NRR, there was a denial I)
I
. k 12 thern, where the DOJ aald we had eviderce where wo could 13 i have procooded against that individual.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
To the extont that the Departmont 15 [
has ovidence indopondent of thoao other sources, I assume we 16 l would want to get it.
As you suggest, we can soo what the 17 report contains, when it comes out, the NRC report.
Okay.
18 l MR. VOIGT:
Judge Kolloy, I think wo had botter 19 clarify this situation a little bit.
I don' t tnink the 20 Departmont of Justico has any evidonce other than what was 21 rJbnitted to the grand jury.
If I ain wrong, wo may find i
22 that out, but certainly, the bulk of tho evidence, l
23 including, I am told, como 75,000 pagos of documents, woro i
24 submitted to the gear.d jury, woro considorod by tho grand 25 jury and formod the basis for the conclusions of the grand ACE. FEDERAL REvonTEns, INc.
32-)4L)b)
NatwneWe Coserage Wyk ))6 #44
. - ~.
l l
l 0440 03 08 37 O aava-t
$"rv to i=aice ea co 9 =v
- a aet to i=atce
- v "
t 2l Now those documents are all under. seal, and they 3
are protected by Rule 6 of the Criminal Rules, and Judge l
4 Rambo has already very clearly rules that she is not about i
I 5
to unseal them.
So I don' t think we are going to get very j
6' far by theorizing about the possible use of grand jury L
7 materials.
1 i
Sl The other point I want to make is that we, at I
i 9 {
least, certainly object to anyone relying on the statements 10 of Mr. Queen.
He said what he thought about a case.
That l
11 is not evidence.
That is just one person's opinion.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
was Queen the U.S. Attorney?
13 MR. VOIGT He was the U.S. Attorney at the time l
14 :
that indictment was handed up.
He has since left that l
i 15 office.
Yes.
Specifically, as this hearing unfolds, you 16 will testimony which 1 think.will convince you that l
17 Mr. Queen was way of f base in some of the things that said, l
18 but be that as it may, certainly, his statement proves 19 nothing and is not competent evidence.
[
\\
l 20 Now there were subsequent investigations by 21 people that seemed pretty competent.
Statements were taken
[
[
22 !
under oath.
Those are all available.
I am not suro
[
j o
i 23 '
whether Mrs. Aamodt la saying we shouldn' t look 'at those or l
?
1 24 i not, but I think that is where wo aro going to have to look,
[
g f
U l
25 l if we want any previous testimony.
i l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
j 202 3474?m Nat nwWe Coversee m)%%M
t l
l 0440 03 09 38 DAVbw 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
What I think, primarily, this l
j 2
morning, we are looking for a procedural mechanism to set up.
3 that will narrow the list of paper and the list of people, i
4 and_I am sure we will have disagreemen'.a over whether I
l 5
particular people should be witnesses or not, and then we l
6 I will resolve that.
l 7
Okay; briefly.
8 MS. AAMODT:
Judge Kelley, I must just say I very 9 ',
much object to the statements Mr. Voigt has made.
Attorney 10 l Dart Queen said very clearly that he could have gone against 11 individuals, but he did not want to make them scapegoats.
12 He had the evidence, and he mentions in a statement of fact O
13
-- I can provide it to the Board --
14 l JUDGE KELLEY:
Not this morning.
We're just not j
l 15 I at that stage.
16 MS. AAMODT:
But I can provide it to the Board 17 subsequently, that he said he could have gono against a 18 i number of individuals.
I really think the ccmments that i
19!,
Mr. Voigt made against Mr. Queen are extremely 20 objectionable, and I object to them, and I know others would 21 object to them.
22 l JUDGE KELLEY:
We're going to take a ten-minute 1
23 i or so break.
24 Let me ask the parties whether -- its. Aamodt's 25 petition is pending, and you now have a copy of the filing.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I EiS347 37 00 N ationwide Coven
- n))N
s i f 0440 03 10 39 j.
DAvbw 1
We could take till quarter after 11:00 -- it is 2-now about 11:00 -- and then'come back and that will be one 4
3 of the topics we will take up.
I
.4 (Recess.)
s b
5 i
t 6
y 2
8 4
9 1
10 i
4 I
11 i
12 13 1
i 14 i
j.
15 I
~
16 1
.c 17 '
4 f
4 18 4
s t
i 19 i
l 4
i 20 I i
l 21 a
22 i
I 23 j 24 ;
25 i-J ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
4 2 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8%336-646
0440 04 01 40
( DAV/bc 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
We're back on the record.
We've 2
been talking with Jack Goldberg and the staf f of f the record 3
and he has explained to me a scope of difference between the 4
Stier Report on the one hand, and the OI NRC staff report on 5
the other.
6 Since we've talked about these, I think it might l
7 be helpful to have an understanding of the grounds that 8
those respective reports' cover and don' t cover.
i 9l Could you just summarize that, Jack?
10 MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes.
The Stier Report, of course, 11 is publicly available.
Individuals who have looked at 'that 12 understand that the scope of the Stier investigation and 13 report was basically limited insof ar as Stier-made findings 14 l and conclusions was limited to current GPU employees.
15l The investigation, which the NRC staff and the 16 i Office of Investigations recently conducted, and which will
?
17 i be the subject of two reports -- a staf f report and an OI 18) report -- had a different scope.
I 19l It was limited to currently licensed operators.
l 20 l' Now, that number at the time the investigation began was 21lI 10.
And during the course of the investigation, several 22 l
' operators who wore licensed resigned their licensed 23 position.
24 l But the scope of the staff.OI report insofar as 25 findings, conclusions and recommendations are made is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-136 6646
i i
0440 04 02 41
/^
(
DAV/bc 1
limited to the 10 individuals who were licensed operators 2
prior to the initiation of that investigation.
3 And so, what we have is a Stier report, which does not 4
address all individuals who were involved in leak rate 5
testing and an NRR OI investigation which will be 6
culminating in two reports, which also does not address all I
' individuals who were involved in the laak rate testing at 7
8 TMI-II.
9 There is an overlap between the NRR and OI i
10 l reports vis-a-vis the Stier Report in that there were some I
.11 (
individuals who are both currently employed by GPU and also 12 licensed operators.
E k
13l However, the Stier Report addresses certain 14 j individuals which the NRR/OI Report does not address because 15 f there are certain individuals who are currently employed by 16 i GPU but who are not licensed.
l 17 And also the NRR/OI Reports will be addressing 18 l certain individuals which are not addressed by Mr. Stier 19 '.
because they' re licensed but they' re not employed by GPU.
I 20 So the scopes are different and neither addresses 21 the full scope of individuals who might be involved in leak 22,
rate testing at "MI-II.
1 23l JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
I think it's useful to 24 have that clarification of scope.
It appears to support our 25 i earlier judgments that we need to have the OI staff report ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
'J)2-347-3700
.%:ionwide Coverage 800 336-6646
0440 04 03 42' tw lDAV/bc 1
because it does cover some different ground, really, before 2
we can efficiently proceed.
3 MR. VOIGT:
I'd like to add just a further note 4
of clarification.
I have no basis for disagreeing with what 5
Mr. Goldberg said, and I don' t.
But it should be pointed 6
out, I believe, that in the process of reaching its 7
conclusions concerning currently licensed individuals, the
~
8l staff and OI interviewed a number of other persons on this I
9 subject.
10 l Presumably, their statements will be appendices i
11 i to that report.
12 MR. GOLDBERG:
Mr. Voigt is correct.
In order
^
I (a") '
13 for conclusions to be reached with respect to the 10 1
14 l individuals who are actually being investigated, it was 15 '
necessary to interview other individuals.
And all of the 16 transcripts of interviews,.I believe, are attached to the OI I
17 ~ l Report.
18 I JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
Okay, we have pending i
19 l a petition from Mrs. Aamodt about intervention as a party.
'20 )
The Board might have some questions and comments.
21,
Let me ask the other parties whether they desire 22 to corament en Ms. Aamodt's most recent filing.
l 23 Mr. Blaka, Mr. Vo ig t, do you have a com:aent?
24 Okay.
1 25 l MR. VOIGT:
I guess my basic comment is that I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
(
b 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8 6 334 6646
0440 04 04 43 l
(
q,jDAV/bc 1
don' t think the most recent filing adds a great deal, or
~
2l significantly responds. to the points that we raised in our i
~3 answer to her original filing.
4 There are two problems here.
The first is what 5
is her interest in the proceeding?
6 And the second is what is she going to contribute 7
to the proceeding?
8 As far as interest goes, the Aamodt definition of 9;
inte re s t',
it seems to me, is broad enough to permit any 10l citizen of the United States to intervene in this case.
I 11 l don' t even know where Mrs. Aamodt and her husband live, but 1
it's a very broad kind of amorphous definition.
12 i
13 q If f live any place close to any nuclear power 14 ;
plant, then I have an interest in this proceeding.
I don' t 15 1 think that's good enough.
16 The more important question, however, in my mind 17 is what are the Aamodts going to contribute to this hearing 18 1 if they are admitted?
I 19 l And all I've seen so far is a cross-reference to 20 their earlier petition, which we' quoted from and referred to 21 j in our answer.
And the short of it is that they've always i
22 I been after management.
23 l The Commission has taken management out of this I
J 24 proceeding.
And unless and until that ruling has been 25 j reversed, it seems to me that we have a big zero here in ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 fM6
0440 04 05 44 t) DAV/bc
(_j 1
terms of what the Aamodts are likely to bring to this I
2 hearing.
3 They don't profess to have any personal knowledge 4
about any of the people 'who did the leak rates.
And they 5i don' t profess to h' ave any technical understanding or l
6l expertise concerning leak rates.
7 So what' = lef t?
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Burns?
9 MR. BURNS:
I have no comments.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Maupin?
11.
MR. MAUPIN:
None.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Ms. Aamodt, let me just 13 make a couple of comments.
I don't know whether you want to I
14 1 respond to Mr. Voigt.
We have a couple of concerns that we 15 think are somewhat similar.
Just a comment on this notion 16 of interest, the word we've used a lot in this context.
17j It would seem to me that the Commission could 18 have set up this hearing in such a way as to impose no 19 -
interest requirement in the rather technical sense in which 20 we use the word.
Interest often is quoted as a first cousin 21 l of standing.
22 They cculd have said anybody who contributad to 23 this proceeding can come in.
24 ;
obviously, if they file a petition, they're Os -
25 l 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Natio mide Caveuse 800-33MM6
0440 04 06 45
()DAV/bc 1
interested in the normal dictionary definition of 2
" in te res t".
But they did put in language which says:
3 Any person who has an interest which may be i
4 af fected by this proceeding may' petition to intervene.
The 5j petition to. intervene shall include the name of the party, l
6 how the party's interest may be-affected by the proceeding.
7 In other words, as I read that, what kind of 8
stako does the party have in the outcome, in a personal 4
9 sense?
I 10 It's easy to see how the employees who have 11 intervened here have a very direct personal interest in 12 their employment prospects, their reputations, if they are
(~%
(-)
13 !
found to be guilty of leak rate falsification.
14 it's also easy to,see why GPU, GPUN would have an 15 l interest in the sense that they have present employees who l
16 I were involved, who may be adversely affected.
I would think 17 they'd have a secondary reputational interest at stake, and 18 so forth.
19 -
So the idea of stake in the outccme that differentiates one from the rest of the world, or at least 20 21 !
the United States, seems clear in their case.
22 !
We are not clear what your personal interest in l
I I
23j that sense is in this case other than your obvious, genuine
.r 24 and sincere interest in this kind of a problem.
1 25 Can you help us on that?
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
I 202-347 3700 Natior. wide Coverage F00 336-646
0440 04 07 46 DAV/bc 1
MS. AAMODT:
Certainly I can help you on that.
2 I'm interested in being able to reside in the vicinity of a 1
3' nuclear power plant -- Three Mile Island, Peachbottom, 4
Limerick.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Where do you reside right now?
6, MS. AAMODT:
Uhere was I physically residing last 7i week?
I was in Lake Placid.Last week.
And about a week l
8 before that, I was in Parksburg, Pennsylvania.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Which do you characterize as your 10 personal home?
11 MS. AAMODT:
Which do we call our personal home?
12 l JUDGE KELLEY:
Where do you live now?
People ask O
13 l you where'do you live, what do you say?
l I
l 14 i MS. AAMODT:
We use our Parksbur7 residence as 15 l our legal residence.
I have a Pennsylvania driver's l
16 license.
We have all our money in Pennsylvania banks.
We i
17 ;
last voted in Ponnsy1vania.
We spent the entire 1985 in l
18l Pennsylvania.
1 19 We have been this winter in Lake Placid.
So we i
20 l intend to ceturn to Pennsylvania, as f ar as owning a home 21 again in Pennsylvania.
We own a home in Lake Placid.
We 22 [
had a 160-acre farm in Pennsylvania, which we were forced to 23 l sell because of what we perceived as NRC's failure to 24 regulate nuclear power plants.
25 And it was specifically this issue, the TMI leak i
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationmide Coserage 300 ?36 64M
- - - - -. -_,__. _.. _-347 3700., - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
0440 04 08 47
. (oj DAV/bc 1
rate issue, which we raised into.the restart proceeding 2
which caused us to look for an investment that we had tied 3l up in the-farm in another area.
4 We were concerned that there could be another 5,
' accident at Three Mile Island, that there could be an I
6l accident, precriticality of Unit 2, and that we could lose 7
everything that we had.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Can we isolate this now?
When you 9 l refer to Pennsylvania, I think you mentioned your 10 l Pennsylvania home is 40 miles from Three Mile Island.
11 Correct?
12 MS. AAMODT:
Yes.
We' re about to inherit another 13 home in Pennsyt.vania, that of my f ather-in-law, wno is i
14 i terminally ill.
We have two children who work in 15 Pennsylvania and live near, between the Limerick and Salem 16 plants.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Can we narrow it down a little bit 18 l from the State of Pennsylvania?
l 19 i Some of the parties involved here, that I l
20 l understand, are currently employees of GPU and some, I 21 lj believe, work at TMI.
But they can't work on TMI-I, at I
least as operators, until this is resolved.
22 23 '
Are you expresaing a concern that if you don' t i
24 {
participate, this proceeding might not arriva at the right l
n V
I i
25 result?
And then someone who really did falsify leak rates ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage ftO 336-6M6
0440 04 09 48
()DAV/bc 1
would go back to work at TMI?
2 l-MS. AAMODT:
At TMI, Limerick, Peachbottom or any 3
of the other nuclear power plants in the vicinity of our 4
interest.
And I think there's a very good chance of that.
5 I don't see where my interests could be represented.
I 6g I see where one of the lawyers today represented 7ll the truth he misrepresented this morning, information both 8
about the Fagar and Benson Report, and about the Department 9
of Justice investigation.
i i
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's just say you disagree with 11 what he said.
12 MS. AAMODT:
No, I can cite you --
13 I
JUDGE KELLEY:
We don't want you to cite us 14 l because it's not the matter before the house.
We could i
15 l spend the rest of the morning on that.
I think we I
16 1 understand your point about the Pennsylvania context.
17 Now, what about the other. point of contribution I
la j to the proceeding?
19 l MS. AAMODT:
I am prepared to suggest witnesses.
20l I think I've shown that th'is morning.
I understand the 21 Fagar and Benson Report.
I read the Fagar and Benson 22l Report.
I think the Board should depend on tnat.
It's an 3
23 i excellent technical analysis.
)
24,
I wrote a summary of what the Fagar and Benson O-
.l 25 !
Report concluded when GPU's president of the board indicated I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 147 3700
%tionwide Coserage 300 336-4 46
0440 04 10 49
(_.)DAv/bc 1
that the report did not verify the falsification of leak 2
rate reports, which was untrue.
And put that into the 3
record in the proceeding.
I don' t know whether it as a 4
result of that or because of the president of the board's 5
rereading of the report that he no longer did not understand 6
the raport.
7 I am very well-prepared to contribute to this 8
hearing.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me ask whether you have any l
10 personal knowledge of the matters we'll be looking at.
i 11 '
MS. AAMODT:
Do you mean know any of the people 12 personally?
(~)
\\/
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
The bottom line objective is to 14 find out whether there as f alsification and find out who did 15 it.
Do you have any personal knowledge of those matters?
16 MS. AAMODT:
I have cross-questioned and deposed 17 !
some of the people who will be involved,.who were the people i
18 who were likely involved.
For instance, Brian Baylor and a 19 number of other people.
I personally deposed 26 of the 20 operators in the cheating hearing, evidence on which the 21 Special Master depended.
He raquested those depositions and 22 used them in his report.
23 {
JUDGE KELLEY:
Apart from cheating, frankly, I'd i
24 l be surprised if you did.
I don't either have any personal
-~
25 l knowledge as to what happened at TMI with the leak rate.
l l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationmide Coverage 800 336-M15
0440 04 11 50
(_,)DAV/bc 1
MS. AAMODT:
Yes.
We raised the motion.
We 2
wrote comments to the Commission on April 16, 1983 in 3
response to the Commission's request that parties come on a 4
' court trial, that it was GPU versus Babcock and Wilcox.
The 5
NRC staff, the month prior to that, April 1983, was asked by 6
the Commission:
I 7
What did you find that's relevant to the restart 8
proceeding?
9 The staff made a report in March to the 10l Commission saying that there was no information in that i
ll ' l proceeding that was' relevant to the restart proceeding.
12 We filed our report on April 16th.
It was
.(m N/
13 received in the Commission's of fices on April 18 th, at 11
-l 14 l o' clock in the morning.
Within 23 hours2.662037e-4 days <br />0.00639 hours <br />3.80291e-5 weeks <br />8.7515e-6 months <br />, the NRC staff had i
15 l
'then changed their position.
Thers was no other information 16 I that the staff had except our motion, and that began a 17 two-hour search to see how that insue could be resolved in 18 I the restart proceeding.
19 j By our motion, we contributed and this hearing is 1
20 !
here today because of our motion.
Otherrwise, this issue 21 l would have been brushed aside.
That was the NRC's staff 22 intent, to brush this issue aside.
They opposed our I
23,
motion.
Before that, they had no intent in bringing this i
1 24 issue to the restart proceeding.
25,
And I think that we can contribute.
I am very ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347-37N)
Nationwide Coverage 600 336 % 46
0440 04 12 51
(
)DAV/bc 1
well-acquainted with what the leak rate test is, the 2
technical aspects.
As I said, I've read the Fagar and 3
Benson Report.
I am very well-acquainted with many of the 4
interviews ~that were done.
5 I've read Dr. Hartman's interviews.
I've read a
[
S number of other interviews.
I am very well-prepared.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you very much.
8 Does the staff want to make any comment?
9 (No response.)
10 l JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
So we'll take the question i
11 '
of your petition under advisement, Mrs. Aamodt.
We expect 12
.to rule on it very shortly.
13 MS. AAMODT:
Could I just say this one thing?
14 l This is what Sylvia Rambo wrote in response to i
l 15 l the NRC's request for records.
She said:
16 i "The public certainly has an interest in seeing l
17 i that proper _ regulatory action is taken against individuals 18{
employed in sensitive positions in the nuclear industry who
\\
19 i are shown to have violated regulations or committed other i
20 l professional misdeeds."
21 l I also want to say that, contrary to what 22 l Mr. Voigt said, she says right heres 23 )
"When and if, as a result of knowledge gained in i
24 this investigation, the NRC is able to formulate and compose 25 a carefully tailored request for disclosure of the records, I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
202-347 3700 Natior. wide Coverage 804 336
__ ___, ___ _ _-6646_. - ~. _ _
i j
0440 04 13 52 r
~
f()DAV/bc 1
which is supported by a particularized showing of the kind 2
of extraordinary compelling need discussed throughout this 3
memorandum, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should re-l-
l 4i petition this order."
I l
l 5
There was not a cutoff of records.
And I would 6
also like to say that, in the Fagar and Benson Report, it i
7 was not that they didn' t want to go ahead and interview I
l 8:
operators, they were prevented from doing that by GPU.
It I
l 9l says so right in the report.
10 l 1
11 I
12 13 f
14 i i
15 I l
l-i i
16 j f
l 17 l 18 ]
l f
i l
19 20 :
21 l
22 I i
23 I
I 25 i l
l l
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347-3700 Natiun aide Coserage 800 336-6644
I
,00 05 01 53 1j 1
DAVbur JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
2 MS. AAMODT:
So those kind of misrepresentations 3
to this Board.
4 I am here -- I know the record, I have read the 5
record, and I am well-acquainted with i t -- I arn here to 6
point that out to this Board.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Anything else?
l 8
(No response.)
9-l JUDGE KELLEY:
We will be ruling on your petition 10 and on other issues shortly.
11 In terms of the points we had raised in our 12 !
ordar, there are not a lot left.
We raised a question 13 !
about -- well, there was the one of sequestration.
But let l
14 me back up one.
l 15 I There was a question about the procedure for 16 proposing questions on prefiled, and then the question was 17 whether those quections should be served on all the other 18 :
parties and then all the other parties would serve f urther 19 j questions.
20 l Mr. Voigt was, I know, in opposition to that l
21 !
approach, and I believe Mr. Maupin also.
I am speaking to 22 :
the two comments that were filed.
And correct me if I I
n 23 l misstate your positions, but basically I read you to say V
f that you favored submission of proposed questions just 24 to 25 l the Board without that follow-up, Staf f, and service on the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- ^3" Nio"
- id' C '"'5'
"'"-3 36-""6
0440 05 02 54
(_))DAvbur
(
1 other parties.
2 Is that right?
3l MR. MAUPIN:
That is not quite right~in my case.
4 I simply was pointing outJthat consideration, raising that i
i 5
question.
I 6
JUDGE KELLEY:
Maybe you could then restate it, 7
having raised it.
8 MR. MAUPIN:
I simply pointed out that in more 9'
conventional proceedings it is my impression that one does 10 not advise the other parties what questions one proposes to 11 ask on cross-examination.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Correct, I thought that was your O
I 13 '
position.
It is not not your position, if I can put it that 14 way, right?
I 15 l (Laughter.)
16l!
MR. MAUPIN:
You can put it that way.
I feel 17 4
imperiled if I answer.
18 p JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Voigt, I believo you favored l
19 I not serving the other parties, is that correct?
l 20 MR. VOIGT That is certainly correct.
Of 21 course, I have to reiterate that we really think this whole 22 proposed process of written questions, then written 23 I follow-up questions, and so forth and so on, is going to 24 make this thing last about two years.
{}
25 '
It would be a lot easier if we could have the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202.*,47 3700
. Nationwide Coverage
- 80) 33 M 646 -
I 0440 05 03 55
()DAvbur 1
normal way of presenting witnesses and asking questions.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Just a comment in that regard.
We 3
did hear that part of your presentation.
Of course, the 4
Commission barred the usual cross procedures, and you moved 5
for a change in that regard, and they denied the motion.
6 l It seems to us if experience in the proceedings
/
7l shows it just doesn' t work very well, we might want to go 8
back to the Commission and ask them to think about it once I
9 more.
10 But ' not having even started the process, it seems 11 to us that we are bound to go ahead under the procedures 12 that have been laid down, at least to give it a try.
13 MR. VOIGT:
I can understand that point of view, j
i 14 !
Judge Kelley.
I guess I am concerned because one of the 15 areas where we feel we are going to probably have quite a 16 (
few questions, really of a clarifying nature, not I
17 necessarily the sort of cross-examination that you think of
~18 ;
in a contested trial, you know just to bring out the facts, l
19.i will come very' early when we have these technical reports 20 j coming in and technical witnesses.
f If you are talking about cross-examining the 21 22 I individual empicyees, I am presumably not going to want to i
23 '
cross-examine most of them at all.
All I would foresee 24 there would be maybe a few follow-up questions if the Board i
25 l has interrogated them, as the Board no doubt will want to.
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationaide Coverage 800 336 M46
- 347 3700
0440'O.' 04 l
56
()DAVbur 1
So I see where you are going, you know.
Le t ' s
'2 give it a try and find out if it works.
My concern is we 3!
may find out.too late that it doesn' t work.
4 JUDCE KELLEY:
I understand.
5l MR. BURNS:
Your Honor, I don't totally agree l
6j with the procedure recommended by Mr. Voigt, assuming that 7
everything is going to be in writing -- and that would 8
include objections.
If that be the case, I would find.it 9
difficult.
I 10 '
I would prefer to get the proposed questions 11 i ahead of time no I can look at the questions and decide 12 whether I have any objections, and if I do, I can then 13 provide a written objection as opposed to having to object
~
14 i somewhere af ter the fact when the cat is already out of the i
l 15(
bag and it is on the record -- information is on the record 16 l that need not be there were the objection to be successtui.
I 17 ;
Given that, and if my assumption is correct, I l
18 't would prefer to have the parties or those involved exchange i
19 !
their questions ahead of time so I can determine whether we i
20 have any written objections to submit before the testimony 21 of the witness.
22 l JUDGB KELLEY:
I can' t recall whether we had put 23 out the issue of written objections as such.
24 MR. BURNS:
That hasn' t been decided, I don' t O
i 25 l believe.
I i
1 ACE-FEDERAL REFORTERS, INC.
202
.. -347 37N Nationside Coverage FA336 6646 i
0440 05 05 57
()DAVbur 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
I think what we were thinking of 2l when we posited this approach, should we have prefiled 3
followed by questions, followed by questions on top of 4
questions, and our feeling in terms of time, if nothing 5
else, was that is pretty clumsy, and we are going to have to 6l have some kind of follow-up procedure in any event, and it 7
would be better to structure that in such a way as to at 8
least to some extent accommodate what you might have done by 9
serving questions in the first place and generating it y
?
10 ;
underground.
l 11 As far as objections go, again my memory may be 12 I off, but I don't recall we really focused on written (x
l 13 objections at the hearing stage.
We talked earlier today 14 about objecting to pieces of the record in writ,ing.
I 15 l Am I wrong about that?
16 MR. VOIGT:
You are quite right.
There was i
17 nothing in the Board's order that suggested the use of 18 written objections to written questions.
19 j JUDGE KELLEY:
Needless to say, all we did in 20 l that order was write down the things.that occurred to us, 21 [ ' and it doesn' t represent anything we thought was l
22 l comprenensive, and it would answer everything but just some I
23 !
things we might get cleared up in advance so that we_can i
24 move ahead.
25 i I suppose we could think a bit more about the i
i I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationside Coverage 800 336-6645 l
-347 3700.. - -.
0440 05 06 58
.C\\
(_/ DAVbur 1
objection process in light. of what has been said here.
2 MR. MAUPIN:
You did, Judge, raise the question 3
of counsel's objections to your questions, the questions 4
that were. asked th' rough you.
.5 I think it is correct you did not distinguish, as 6
I read it, between written questions -- I mean written 7
objections and oral objections.
8' JUDGE KELLEY:
Excuse me a moment.
9, MR. MAUPIN:
Paragraph 8 is the one I have in i
10 l mind of your order, memorandum and order.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
We cached it in terms 'of 12 l whether we would entertain objections.
We may have t'N I
I 13 surprised some of you.
I 14 I would think we would.
I don' t see any reason.
15,
Is there any reason why we shouldn't entertain objections?
i 16 l (No response.)
17 ;
JUDGE KELLEY:
If you somehow decide that you I
18 I have got to have written objections in advance, then you i
19 might argue that you 'shouldn' t entertain oral objections at 20 I the hearing and you wouldn't get anything out of the l
21 )
process.
l 22 !
But we thought on the bcoad question of can l
23 )
people object, our answer is yes unless somebody doesn' t
(}
24 want to.
25 Okay.
I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
I 0440 05 07 59
_l k,3) DAVbur 1I MR. BURNS:
Your Honor, when I made my comments 2
previously, I think I prefaced it with an assumption.
I 3
assumed -- since the machinery seems to be set up for 4
written submissions, I assumed that if we were going to be 5
provided the opportunity to object it would be in writing.
6lj I have no objection to oral objections.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do you favor them?
8 MR. BURNS :
I do.
i 9 !
JUDGE KELLEY:
Does everybody else f avor them, 10 objections on the spot?
11 (No response.)
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Obviously, we can give time for-c:)
L3 f that and. listen to the objection.
14 Okay, we raised the subject of sequestration.
It 15 !
was suggested by Mr. Voigt at least that it was kind of 16 l academic in two senses:
i 17 i One, likely as not we are going to have witnesses 18 l in and out of here one at a time.
We are not likely to have 19 a large gallery, and that seems a fair point.
20 Also, it is a case where thase same people have 21 !
been interviewed so many times for so many years that they l
22 l probably, if they are interested, have a pretty good idea of r
23 !
what other people have said, anyway, which would argue 24 !
against it.
\\
25 On the other hand, we might just have a situation l
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3 00 Nanon* ice Coserage 800 336
-6M5.
l 0440 05 08 60
)DAvbur 1
where we think it is. appropriate, we have two closely l
2 related witnesses and'we really do want them fresh.
I think 3
our attitude is we don' t want to rule out any sequestration 4
entirely, but,that our general thought is, having heard i
5 comments, that it probably wouldn't be used to any great i
6 extent, at least those who didn' t file.
i 7
Mr. Blake, any thought on that?
[
8i MR. BLAKE:
No.
I would be disinclined at this l
9 juncture to enter into it.
I don' t see any' need for 10 sequestration but wouldn't rule out some prospect down the 11 road that it conceivably could.
l 12 I. doubt that will be the case, but we can sure I
s l
13 L talk about it at the time.'
I 14 l JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
15 Mr. Voigt?
16 MR. VOIGT:
I am agreeable to going forward on l
r l
17 !
that basis.
l 18 I JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
l 1
l 19 Mr. Maupin, any thoughts?
l 20 MR. MAUPIN:
That is agreeable to me.
l L
21 f JUDGE KELLEY:
Ms. Aamodt?
I 22 j MS. AAMCDT:
Agreed.
23 l JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
i l
24 We included a couple of paragraphs, one entitled q
)
25
" Role of the. Staff," the other entitled "Ex Parte ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[
i 202 347 3700 Nation *de Coverage suk336-6M6
0440'05 09' 61 f%
V DAVbur 1
Communications."
The parts are interrelated, to some 2
extent.
We got some comment on it.
3 Unless parties want to add to this area this 4
morning, our general feeling is -- well, as a fundamental 5
point, we are not subject to the ex parte rules.
We are not 6
subject to the 2.780 because the Commission said so.
We are 7
not subject to that provision of the Administrative 8
procedures Act, barring ex parte communications, which I 9
think is 557(b), for what it is worth.
10 That only applies in proceedings that were 11 l required by statute to be heard on the record.
That is not i
12 I' this case.
Indeed, this proceeding doesn' t have to be held O
13 ]
at all.
It is a discretionary proceeding that the I
14 Commission is conducting.
15 i So the legal constraints, from those two sources I
16 l at least, don't apply.
I suppose you might get into a 17 certain configuration where fairness, just basic fairness, 18 j would have a bearing on the relationship between the Staff 19 and the Board.
20 We view the Board bacically as a source of 21 '
information for us and a way to f acilitate access to 22 documents and the lika.
Wa can tell you that certainly to 23 dato we haven't discussed the merits of this caso at all, 24 have no views, and as the case progresses on the merits the 25 '
Board will deliberate as a Board and not with the Staff.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m
M2'347*3*00 Nationwide CoverQ 800 33MM6
r l
l 0440 05 10 62 l-Q DAVbur q
l 1
The Staff has a quite separate role to play.
2 They are assisting us here, but following our process under 3l the Commission's order, they are to make recommendations on 1
4 sanctions, if any, things of that nature.
They will do that j
5 separately.
61 I think I would just like to say that as we go l
7' along we will be sensitive to these considerations without 8
attempting to lay down any codes of procedure today.
l 9
Does any party want to comment on that general 10 subject?
11 (No response.)
12 1 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
13 '
We have a couple of other things we 'want to l
14 raise.
It.shouldn't take too long.
I 15 One has to do with our plan to computerize the 16 record that is generated in this case.
To some extent that 17 will involve the cooperation of the parties.
We would like 13 to just tell you what we have in mind and find out a few l
19 l things from you in that regard.
20 The other thing is just the question of the 21 service list and how that is going to be structured.
22 Are there othat topics other than those two I 23 '
just mentioned that parties want to raise this morning?
i 24 Mr. Blake?
25 MR. BLAKE:
No, no other topics.
But I would I
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2 347 3700 Nationwide Coverase 800136 %M
0440 05 11 63 g
C DAVbu'r 1l take this opportunity simply to say that I don' t want my i
2{
silence following Ms. Aamodt's statements to be misread as 3
in any way in agreement with the representations or 2
4 characterizations that she made.
I don't mean to add to the 5l topics.
6 JUDGE KELLEft All right, Mr. Voigt, anything 7
else?
8 MR. VOIGT:
I would simply note that we have not 9
pressed with this Board our previous suggestion that this I
10 Board should be af forde-d some limited latitude for 11 discovery.
12 As I see it right now, I am not sure that I 13 )
really want any discovery, but I would like to make it clear 14 that we are reserving on that issue, and we see that, for i
15 l example, the list of proposed witnesses -- if I see a name t
i 16 on there and it is someone whose position I am not familiar i
17 1 with, whose evidence han never been offered on the record i
18 from provious statementn, et cetera, I might want to come 4
19 back to you on that.
I don't want to pursue it now.
20 l JUDGE KELLEY:
Pine.
I 21 I Mr. Burns?
7 22 ff R.
BURNS:
Your Honor, might I approach you and 23 hand you copies?
24 I had our Wanhington office send our letter, and 25 I will just make it avaLlable to you now.
Acu FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
E 3#*3M 800 336-66M Nationwide Coverasc
.I i
l 0440 05 12 64 f
DAVbur 1
(Handing documents to Board.)
I..
i
(
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Did you have anything else, 3
Mr. Burns?
(
l 4
MR. BURNS:
No, I didn' t?
l l
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Maupin?
l 6
MR. MAUPIN:
No.
k 7j JUDGE KELLEY:
Ms. Aamodt?
8 MS. AAMODT:
No.
l 9
JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
He will go on to these 10 other couple of points that are kind of mechanical.
I I
11 1 Just a comment or two by way of background.
The 12-NRC has been getting more and more heavily into computers in f
4 13 ;
recent years, and to some extent we have started to do that, 14 the Licensing Board.
f a
l 15 An example comes to mind of the rather extensive 16 record generated at the Indian Point hearing a couple of 17 !
years ago on probabilistic risk.
That was all put on the i
18 i computer.
l 19 And it does various things, but I guess the main 20 thing it does is when the Board gets to the point of i
l 21 deciding the case it gives them a search capability through i
22 l the record that is fast snd accurate, a.sau: sing it has been l
23 3 put in right in the first place.
l 24 So that is the kind of thing that we would like 25 to do in this case, and for the most part it is just l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[
E 347 3700 Nationswie Coverage M6336-6M6
~_
0440 05 13 65
)DAVbur 1
something for the Board to do, and it doe.sn' t concern the 2
parties much one way or the other.
3 But there are a couple of points at which we 4
would like to get reactions and information from you.
5 Just running down this list of categories of i
l 6
things, existing investigative documents.
Well, for 7
example, this report from the OI and the Staff.
If that is 8
all, hopef ully, on computer ilisks, we could feed that into.a 9
computer file without creating any problem.
10 We do have an existing arrangement with our court j
11 reporters whereby they tyre up materials on computer 12 )
compatible disks.
That then is fed into the computer as 3 (
l
~
13 !
well.
14 As to prefiled, the usual practice, of course, we l
15 l simply get hard copy service of the testimony.
We would i
16 i still like that to be the case.
This is a question for the 17 l parties, whether they would anticipate that their prefiled l
18 I testimony would be typed up on a computer type typewriter --
19 I am not using the right term, I know, the one with the 20 l screen and all -- that produces a disk or a tape of some 21 sort that could then be fed into our computer file.
I 22 Mr. Blake, maybe you would have to go back and I
23 check.
Is that the sort of thing that you might be capable j
i 24 ;
of doing?
25 l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 371)
Nationwide Coverage W 1bM
i 13 0440 06 01 66 1ll I'T
(_/ DAV/bc MR. BLAKE:
I'll for sure have to go back and 2
check, Mr. Kelley, but the bulk of our written documents are 3,
written and prepe ed on a device like you've described, with I
4 a screen and all.
5 But, beyond that, I don' t know very much about 6li it.
l 7
JUDGE KELLEY:
Can I j ust give you a name in that 8l regard?
I think, to the extent we're really asking you if l
9l you could check back at your offices and see what'you've got 1
10 j in the way of capability, the name here is Jack Wegstine.
11 W-e-g-s- t-i- n-e.
Jack Wegstine.
12 He is the head of our branch and handles this
()
I 13 ~
kind of thing, and is quite knowledgeable about the 14 computers.
1 15 I And perhaps, if his counterpart in your offices,.
16 '
or wherever you are, could just give him a call when you can 17 look into this, he can probably ask the questions better 18 !
than I can, too.
1 19 ;
But our objective is to be able to put prefiled 1
20 l testimony in the computer.
21 MR. BLAKE:
I'm guessing we can do it.
I just 22 l don' t know about compatibility.
i4 23 )
JUDGE KELLEY:
Jack will be happy to talk to f
{}
24 l someone in your office about that.
25 Mr. Voigt, are you also in the computer age?
l l
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[
202 347-3700 Nanonwide Coverage 80lk33MW6
.=
\\
~
0440 06 02 67 DAV/bc 1
MR. VOIGT:
You caught me a little bit flatfooted e
2 here.
I think I know more about leak rapes than computers, 3
from a technical st'andpoint.
But, basically, I think our 4
position is the same as Mr. Blake's.
The issue is probably 5
. compatibility.
l 6i We don' t want to buy a new system for this
~
7 hearing if the system we've got can't interface.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
That probably is the 9
question.
10 MR. VOIGT:
We' ll explore that.
I wanted to 11 raise one other point.
That has to do with computerizing 12 the transcript.
I understand, as part of that process, you
\\-
13 '
can develop, key'words.
If my understanding of that is 14 correct, I think:we'd like to perhaps visit hith the staff a 3s 15 l little bit.
We may have some key words that we would like /
l 16 !
to be sure are included in the process.
l 17j MR. MCBRIDE:
If I could just elaborate, Judge I
18 l Kelley, in using Ace Federal in other proceedings before the i
19 '
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, their good offices now 20 have the capability to have the parties provide to'them key 21 l words at the start or during the course of the day, and when 22 you get your transcript there's a summary sheet in'the front'*
23 l that lists the key word and gives you every page and line 24 l reference where that word appears.
The Board might find,
25 that helpful.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 600 336-6M6
1 I
I 0440 06.03 68 n
(_)DAV/bc 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Does FERC then, if they make up a i
2 computer record in that fashion, with key words supplied at 3
least partly by the parties, can the parties, when they come 4
to the time of writing the proposed findings, plug into 5
FERC's computer and use that record?
6 MR. MCBRIDE:
It's not FERC's computer, it' s Ace.
7 Federal's computer.
Ace Federal provides you the sheet if 8
you ask them to at the inside cover of your. copy of the 9
transcript of that proceeding.
i 10 i Then you make what use of it you will.
Now, I l
11 presume that the Board could ask Ace Federal to somehow 12 systemitize these key words over the course of the 1
O-I, 13I proceeding.
Then everybody would be working from a small I
14 '
version, if you will, of the' transcript, which is a 15 ;
summation of all the key words that anyone has provided to 16 Ace Federal.
17 l JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
What you' re bringing out I
18 i even more is that it's going to be a matter of our computer 19 I experts talking to other computer experts.
But, given this 20 ;
transcript, it will give them a lead, I think, at least.
21 Do the other firms have some such capability?
l 22 l MR. BURNS:
I'll check.
I don't know the answer.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Maybe somebody could let Wegatine l
24 3 know about it.
25 l Ms. Aamodt, do you have a computer?
i i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationside Coverage 804336 6M6
, - _ _. _ ~, _ _.,.
~
0440 06 04 69
)DAV/bc 1
MS. AAMODT:
I do, but I don' t know whether it 2
will interface with this.
But I would certainly use a j
3.
computer service that would be available.
My son-in-law is 4
also a computer expert, so be will be able to tell me.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
We've got IBM, I'm told.
6I The other thing I should just mention, we have e
7l not heard yet with the NRC's sort of central computer people 1
8f as opposed to our office.
We understand that what we're t
9l talking about can be done; it's technically feasible.
I 10 l Whethor the computer people outside our office I
11 have any problems with outside parties tuning in a computer 12 record, we haven't completely done all of that yet.
We have 13 to just drop that as a caveat.
i 14l That's where we changed the word "would" to I
15 l
" mig h t", to allow for that.
But, if we can do that, we I
16 certainly would like to do it if we can, and that might 4
17 "
provide a benefit to all the parties.
i 18 j JUDGE KLINE:
Just a bit of additional 19.
information on that.
We don' t have real guidance yet f rom 20 the NRC as to how freely people will be able to 21 electronically access our computers.
I 22 l Another possible option there is simply the I
i 23 trading of disks or disk copies so that we would have some 24 control over it.
'S i JUDGE KELLEY:
Just a word or two about the rest t
i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage
$ n 336 4 86
0440 06 05 l
70 cw I
?. )DAV/bc 1l of this.
2 Exhibits.
We initially thought that exhibits, we 3
probably wouldn't put in the computer because of the 4
dif ficulties with getting handwritten notes and the graphs, 5
and things like that.
Then we were later told that a lot of 6
that can be put on by scanner.
7 I guess our thought would be, to the extent we 8 l can put exhibits on, we'll put them on.
But it would be I
9!
strictly a feasibility question.
10 Pleadings and orders to date, we thought not, in l
11 !
the sense that we hadn't started to do it.
The parties here 12 l know what these pleadings are.
We haven' t gotten to the
(~h
's) 13 i merite of the case.
And we just thought we wouldn' t put it i
14 ;
on for practical reasons and lack of any real need.
15 l On motions, what we had in mind here, and we are 16 j really sounding you out rather than requesting it, would be 17 something like this, as I understand it.
18 Say Mr. Voigt wants an extension of time, of a 19 !
month or something?
He then sends out that motion on his i
20 '
computer and it comes out here.
He also serves everybody 21 j else from his computer on to their computers.
22 They then, if they object, send their I
23 '
computerized response out to the NRC and everybody else.
(~}
24 Then the Board reads its hard copies as it comes off the
\\_
25 I machine and decides the motion and sends its ruling back out l
l ACF. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 3U-37X)
Nationside Coserage sub3364M4
0440 06 06 71
'()DAV/bc 1
on the computer, all taking place very quickly, no mail, and j
2 so forth.
3 Not ever having tried to do this before, we note
~
4 here we don't really think wa can require it to be done 5
because.there may be bugs in the system.
6 We also wondered whether, in this kind of a case, 7
there's really a lot of mileage in' this approach in terms of 8
time savings.
Unless and until Mr. Voigt gets some 9
discovery.
That's the kind of thing that seems to take the 10 most time in licensing proceedings.
11 And if we' re talking about something like 12 intention to' file, which is my example, it seems easier to l
13 i just do it on the phone.
14 l But can we just ask you first, again realizing l
i 15l you may have to check back for particulars, whether this 16 kind of system -- have you ever used it?
Could you do it?
17l Mr. Blake, we understand that there are certain i
18!
cases that have been run on our electronic filing basis.
19 We've never done it, we' re just looking for information.
l 20 l MR. BLAKE:
I think the answer is, no, we have 1
21 l never done it.
As to our capabilities, I don't know.
I do i,
22 know that we do a fair amount of transmitting of documents, l
l 23 j electronically, including printing out the text at another 24 !
location where the text in our office is not simply a text, 25 '
which is then put on what is called a telecopier and l
l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l l
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage
- XM%%46
J 0440 06 07.
72 i
O oAvebc 1 i reeggeere someg1ece else.
i.
2 But, in fact, will go directly from our 1
3 typewriters into a system used on list of filings, j
4 publishing houses or printing outfits.
I don' t think we' ve 5l ever done it in a case like this with pleadings.
l 6
And I don' t know what our capability is.
- Again, J
i 7 !
I suspect it's going to be a compatibility question.
I 8'
think we probably have the equipment to do it already i
9 inhouse and some other places, but whether it fits with NRC 10 is another question.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Assuming that the technical 1
12 problems might be' dealt with, do you see benefits in this 13 [
particular case for that approach?
I 14 MR. B LAKE :
Yes.
I 15 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Voigt, any thoughts?
16j MR. VOIGT:
I guess I would disagree with the i
17,
last statement.
I don' t really see the benefit.
I don' t 1
f.
18 {
really see a lot of motions or things going on here.
If 19 j.
we've got a scheduling problem, I'd rather pick up the i
20 telephone and, to the extent necessary, get the other i
21 parties in a conference call.
b 22 I I undsrstand the concept, I am just not sure that 1
23 ;
we need it in this caso.
i i
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Mr. Burns?
25 l MR. BURNS:
I don' t know.
I'll be diplomatic.
I I
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationw;de Cmerage 800 336W,46
l
'0440 06 08 73 q
DAV/bc 1
don' t know.
f 2
MR. BLAKE:
I was hoping Mr. Burns, to counter l
3 Mr. Voigt's position, would says Look at my letter.
It 4
came in on that Fancy Dan machine.
i 5
l JUDGE KELLEY:
That's true.
Mr. Maupin?
l 6l, MR. MAHPIti:
I guess that, first of all, I'll see i
7 whether that's possible.
And then I do have one other 8
comment.
It's not clear to me whether the filing l
l j
9 requirements that we normally file in licensing proceedings i
10 under Port 2 apply here.
t 11 '
Presuming they apply here, we would have the l
12 comfort under our ordinary practice of knowing that when O'
13 h things are served on'us by mail, we would get an extr'a fiv.e 14 days, and I think Mr. Blake is just about to give up the l
l 15 extra.five days.
i
[
16 l I don' t know that I object to that.
And the I
17 truth be known, of course, you can make any sort of rulings i
l l
18 {
you wish about the sorts of time limitations for filings 19 that govern this proceeding, I take it.
l 20 l JUDGE KELLEY:
I think the point you raise is a l
21 good one.
Ms. Aamodt, thoughts on electronic filing?
l 22 MS. AAllOOT:
Is your question directly toward l
23 i motions?
l 24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Motions, basically, yes, whether i
25 !
we ought to try to do that by computer as opposed to the l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nanonwide Ccverare 800 33M4h
r' 0440 06 09 74 Ooav/ec 1
or 1
it ervice or d 11verv-i 2
Ms. AAMODT:
I really have no feeling one way or l
3 the other.
I do want to say that I think the idea of having 4
a transcript on computer is excellent.
5' JUDCE KELLEY:
That we're going to do in any l
6 event.
7 MS. AAMODT:
And any other things we can on 8l computer.
l l
l 9j JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Maupin's point about not f
10 filing on time for service, we've been taking that apart, l
l 11 too, by virtue of the Commission's order.
And I don' t l
l 12 l recall whether the things that got put back in included 13 mailing.
But I think not.
We can think about that and 14 l t
include something in our order.
l l
l 15 j I don't think offhand, if we've got filing I
16 deadlines for prefiled and questions, and we set them 17 4
specifically, unless we specify that it's got to be in the l
18 parties' hands by a certain date, and time really isn't of I
I l
19 :
the essence, I would assume that the mailing rules would i
l 20 apply.
And you would simply filo by mail on the deadline 21' date and it will get here whenever it gets here.
I 22 But we hadn't thought it through.
Are there L
23 -
other aspects of this we really need to focus on right now?
24 (No response.)
O 25 !
JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
The service list in this I
i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l M.347 3*00 Nationwide Co$ erase S00 336-6M6
0440 06 10 75
(()DAV/bc 1
case has been growing in incremental pieces as different 2
parties file.
I was told that they started, they being 3
Docketing and Service downtown, started with the TMI restart 4
service list or some variation of it.
5 I would think, now that we've ruled on parties --
6 and we'll rule on Mrs. Aamodt shortly -- that it would be 7
basically the parties in the case and a few other interested 8 l people.
And we would subtract some of the people from TMI i
9 restart.
10 We did get a number of attorneys, numerous 11 employees, for example, have a good number of attorneys.
12 Docketing and Service tells me it's their practice to put,
(
13 :
when there are a lot of people interested, to put two people 14.
on the list rather than all of them.
15 If your situation is such, well, if you want to 16 just designato two, I suppose that's fine.
If you really 17 need more service, then I think it's more of an issue 18 between you and Bill Clements downtown in Docketing and 19 !
Service.
And I suggest you just negotiate with him as to l
20 who gets named on the service list.
21 We don' t have a strong feeling about it.
22 i Mr. Voigt?
23 MR. VOIGT I think Mr. Clements usually takes 24 i what the Board or somebody else tells him, at least to begin O.
l 25 '
with.
We' re quite content with what we have already I
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8W.336 646
l l
0440 06 11 76 ODiv/ho 1
9rono ed.
2 Mr. Gephart is on the service, list in Harrisburg, 3
and I am on the service list in Washington.
That should 4
meet our needs.
My responsibility, in particular, to be 5
sure that people in~my firm who don't work in Washington 6'
receive prompt notification after I get it.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
I'm sure that's fine from your 8
standpoint.
9 Are there service problems that the other parties 10 l have on the assumption that they can have at least two names 1
11 on the-list?
12 (No response.)
13 l JUDGE KELLEY:
I gather not. 'We'*ll settle it 14 that way.
15 The Board has nothing else if the parties don't.
16 Thank you very much.
We are adjourned.
17 (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m.,
the pro-hearing 18 l conference was concluded.)
19 20 i l
21 l 22 23 l 24 l 25 l I
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage muk336 6M6
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
INQUIRY INTO TIIREE MILE -ISLAND UNIT 2 -
LEAK RATE DATA FALSIFICATION 1
DOCKET NO.:
LRP PLACE:
B E T il E S D A, MARYLAND O
v DATE:
FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
f Y
~
(sigt)
(TYPEDb DAVID L.
!!OFFMAN Official Reporter R*tportersAffil{ationACE-PEDfRAL REP RTERS, INC O