ML20155G651
| ML20155G651 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1986 |
| From: | Jim Hickey GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-052, CON-#286-52 GL-519-02-SP, GL-519-2-SP, LRP, NUDOCS 8605070069 | |
| Download: ML20155G651 (20) | |
Text
,
3/y I) s May 2, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E 'S gf,.g, BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD l'~! %" M ~.,., ~
.t...
In the Matter of CHAlects
)
Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE
)
ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE
)
ASLBP No. 86-519-02 SP DATA FALSIFICATION
)
)
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION'S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENT TO AAMODT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF ATTORNEYS At the pre-hearing conference on April 24, 1986, the Pre-siding Board extended to May 2, 1986, an opportunity for the parties to respond to the " Motion for Dismissal of Employees' Attorneys" filed by Mrs. Aamodt on March 14, 1986 and the "Sup-plement to Aamodt Motion for Dismissal of Attorneys"
(" Supple-mental Motion"), filed April 18, 1986.
See LRP Tr. 193-5.
The Motion sought the dismissal of counsel for the employees on conflict of interest grounds.
One collateral allegation made in the Motion, supported only by the unsworn " affidavit" of Mrs. Aamodt, claimed that statements of counsel for the employees that GPUN had not attempted to influence their repre-sentation were false, because GPUN attorneys had improperly
" coached" two witnesses in violation of a sequestration order j.
in a 1981 proceeding unrelated to leak rate testing.
8605070069 860502 PDR ADOCK 05000320 G
PDR er o
\\
In its Memorandum and Order dated March 26, 1986, the Board stated:
[T]he Board does not consider it practical or necessary to delve in depth into matters that may have occurred in the past in other cases unrelated to leak rate falsification, such as the matters related in Mrs.
Aamodt's affidavit, Attachment 2 of the (Aamodt Motion for Dismissal).
If those matters were addressed on the record at that time, a copy of the relevant portion of the record may suffice.
Memorandum and Order dated March 26, 1986, at 18.
In their Supplemental Motion, the Aamodts briefly responded to the Board's ruling:
The portion of the record where the matter was raised is attached.
(Attachment 1).
As can be seen, the matter was discussed off the record on the request of GPU's attorney.
The matter was raised and came up the following day.
We do not have that portion of the transcript (Tr. 26,910; 26,948-9 generally), however, it will be supplied as Attachment 2.
Supplemental Motion at 8.
No " Attachment 2" has been supplied.
The Aamodts first raised the issue of alleged inappropri-l ate contacts between witnesses and counsel for Licensee in vio-f lation of a sequestration order on December 9, 1981, and a i
bench conference with all parties present was held on the mat-ter.
See Restart Tr. 26,712-3, 26,797.
On December 10, 1981, l
the Aamodts moved for a stay pending a hearing on the "integri-ty" of the proceeding.
See id. at 76,788-9.
The Aamodts stat-ed a possible need to inquire into the nature and extent of contacts l <
i i
with witnesses not only by counsel for Licensee but also by the NRC staff.
Id. at 26,789-90.
Counsel for Licensee, une NRC Staff, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania all opposed the Aamodt motion to stay.
Id. at 26,790-4; see also id. at 26,852.
After what Judge Milhollin characterized (Tr. 26,797) as an " extensive" off-the-record discussion on December 9 and the extensive on-the-record discussion on December 10, the judge denied the Aamodt motion.
He commented that a claim of inap-propriate contact between counsel and witnesses would have to be supported by "a very clear showing, a clear offer of proof of improprieties, and no such offer has been made."
Despite this invitation, Mrs. Aamodt did not relate her " bathroom con-versation" with Ms. Gottlieb, now (five years later) claimed in Mrs. Aamodt's March 14, 1986 " Affidavit" to have occurred shortly before.
It also should be noted that in the Aamodts' Motion for Reconsideration or, in the alternative, Motion for Directed Certification filed on January 8, 1982 there is a sim-ilar absence of any reference to a conversation with Ms.
I Gottlieb.
Ms. Gottlieb, contrary to the Aamodt " Affidavit," is still an attorney with Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, and L
at the time of the " cheating" hearing, she had been with the l
firm approximately two years, following a clerkship with a United States Court of Appeals. She denies the conversation de-scribed in Mrs. Aamodt's affidavit.
l l
\\
s After the filing of oppositions by the Licanece and NRC staff, the Judge issued a Memorandum and Order on February 9, 1982 denying the Aamodt motion for reconsideration or directed certification.
The Judge found that counsel's action did not violate the " literal terms" of a sequestration order, and was done in " good faith."
Memorandum and Order Denying Motion to Stay the Hearing, at p.
2 (February 9, 1982).
(The Memorandum and Order, and pertinent transcript pages, are attached.)
Thus, the matter was clearly, in this Board's phrase
" addressed on the record" at the time of the restart proceeding in 1981-82.
Its relevance to the Aamodt's Motion to Disqualify the employees' attorneys was marginal from the outset.
Had Mrs. Aamodt provided the full record of the outcome of this matter, this Board could have promptly resolved at least this aspect of her Motion.
Nothing should now prevent the Board from taking that action.
Dated:
May 2, 1986 Ern est L.
BlqRe, Jr.
J.fatrickHickey SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 Counsel for GPU Nuclear Corporation i
i I
! l l
\\
4-E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. LRP INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE
)
ISLAND UNIT 2 LEAK RATE
)
ASLBP No. 86-519-02 SP DATA FALSIFICATION
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 2, 1986, I served the foregoing "GPU Nuclear Corporation's Response to Supplement to Aamodt Motion for Dismissal of Attorneys" by mailing, first class, postage prepaid, a copy thereof to the following persons:
Administrative Judge James L. Kelley, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 t
Jack R.
Goldberg, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l l l
i 4
Docketing and Service Branch (3)
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Harry H. Voigt, Esq.
James W. Moeller, Esq.
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20036 Smith B. Gephart, Esq.
Jane G.
Penny, Esq.
Killian & Gephart 216-218 Pine Street Box 886 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 James B.
Burns, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Mrs. Marjorie M. Aamodt Box 652 Lake Placid, New York 12946 and Mrs. Marjorie M. Aamodt 200 N. Church Street Parkesburg, Pennsylvania 19356
\\
s\\
J.
Pal rick Hic:tey
/.
26,712 1 that period, but I do not remember the details very I
2 clearly.
3 0
Was individual 00 on your shif t at that time?
l 4
A Yes, 00 va on my shift at that time.
You are 5 ref erring to the April licensing exam?
8 0
Yes, I am.
And did you have training sessions and 7 would individual 00 have been part of those training 8 sessions with you?
I
,i 9
A We did have training sessions on shift, and 00 I
l 10 would have been part of the training sessions, yes.
11 (Pause.)
12 MS. BRADFORD:
I have no further questions.
Thank 13 you.
14 BY MRS. AAMODT:
15 0
Hello, Mr. P.
18 A
Hello.
17 0
Tr. P, did anyone discuss Mr. Ward's testimony 18 with you since the beginning of the sequestration order t
19 until today?
i 20
( Pause. )
i 21 A
Someone discussed Mr. Ward's implication that I 22 had made a statement that Mr. Husted asked me a question, I
23 y e s.
That someone is the company lawyer, Ms. Gottlieb.
I 0
Prior to July 1981 24 25 JUDGE MILHOLLINs What did Ms. Go ttlieb discuss l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
4
.i 25,713 i
ii:
I h
l 1 with you?
l
!)
T 2
MR. BLAKEa Judge Milhollin, do you really regard j
3 as appropriate at this juncture exploring on the record ?
If f
4 you want to talk a t lea s t initially in a bench conference I
5 --
6 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
All right.
7 MR. BLAKE:
I would at least want to start 8 the re a t the minimum.
t 9'
JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
Very well.
All right.
to (Bench conference was held.)
11 12 13 6
14 10 j
16 i
17 18 t i 19
(
l 20 I;
21 ii I
22
\\
23
. A
\\
1 24 25 e
' l l
l l
t-ALDERSoN REPORUNG COMPANY,INC,
s 26,788
- specific individuals -- would be interested in.
i JUDGE MILHOLLIN All right.
Why don't we put 2
3 this on the agenda for discussion at lunch?
This is a 4 subject which saems to me to be amenable to an accommodation 5 off the record, and perhaps some kind of agreed upon 6 submittal :ould satisf y the need for the information without 7 revealing identities.
8 MR. BLAKEs We have had good luck in the past on 9 working these things out, Judge Milhollin.
I understand to wha t Mrs. Aamodt is saying.
11 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
All right.
12 MRS. AAMODTa My husband would like to introduce 13 another issue.
14 MR. AAHODTa Just one.
I move for a stay of the 15 hearing pending an evidentiary hea ring of the intecrity of 16 the process.
A showing is provided by the evidence on the 17 record of inappropriate contacts between counsel for the 18 licensee and at least two witnesses.
19 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
I am not sure if I understand 20 what you just said.
It was rather sho rt, and it brought u;a 21 rather delicate subject.
22 MR. AAMODT4 Yes.
a JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
And there are lots of possible 24 implications which you have not described.
Rather than 25 describing them in detail, perhaps you could just give us a l
t l
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, h
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
s 26,789 1 longer summary of your views on the subject.
MR. AAMODTs We are moving for a stay in the 2
3 proceeding pending an evidentiary hearing of the integrity 4 of the process.
I
~
5 MR. AA50DT4 I make tha t motion.
6 JUDGE HILHOLLIN:
What do you mean by the 7
8 integrity of the process?
g MR. AAHODTs That the integrity of this proceeding 10 has been defeated by inappropriate contacts between counsel 11 for the licensee and witnesses in the proceeding, that they 12 have been inappropriately coached and that an explanation,of 13 a good deal of incredible evidence might now be explained 14 because of what we heard yesterday.
15 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
You will have to make your 16 motion more complate in order f or Mr. Blake to be able to 17 r es po nd to it, and for me to be able to rule on it.
18 MR. ADLERa If we are going to discuss this at any 19 length, I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask the 20 current witness to leave the room.
21 (Pause.)
22 MR. AAHODTs I did not realize that was a witness 23 sitting there.
The issue, Judge Milho111n, is the extent, 24 the content, and the nature of counsel's contacts with 25 witnesses throughout the proceeding.
And perhaps it would ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
.na.,.o n....... e...,............ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
s 26,790 1 be justifiable to inquire into the extent, nature, and 2 contact of the staf f 's contacts with witnesses also.
I do not know, but I do know that yesterday there 3
4 was what we considered to be a showing that serious doubt 5 exists relative to the value of the testimony that we have 6 heard f rom witnesses, and that thet question relative to 7 value relates to whether or not they have been coached to 8 tell us wha t their employer would rather have us hear, and 9 their employer is -- I do not know what the right word is, to but the defendant in this case.
si JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
We do ha'e a motion.
I assume 12 that at least one party will respond to the motion.
13 MR. GOLDBERGa I think you can assume that at 14 least two parties will respond to the motion.
15 MR. ADLERa Three.
16 MR. G3LDBERG I would suggest that it is probably 17 appropriate for the licensee to respond first.
18 MR. BLAKEa Judge Milho111n, I oppose the motion, j
19 and I will attempt to restrain to the ve ry best of my 20 abilities the vigor with which I might very well express my 21 feelings on this motion.
I think this proceeding has l
l 22 proceeded with what I would characterize as a good deal of l
M interplay between the parties which has been favorable and i
24 with what I would regard as good faith on the part of each l
l 25 of the representatives.
t ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
s 26,791 Never in my career as an attorney have my a client been challenged by any other 2 relationships with 3 counsel or individual in a proceeding.
I f ind it 4 particularly distressing that the challenge would be made by 5 a party not a counsel, not subject to nor f amiliar with the 6 codes of professional responsibility by which all attorneys 7 are bound.
I have conscientiously abided by those strictures 8
9 in this proceeding and elsewhere.
The indication yesterday to was that following the testimony by an NRC witness who for 11 the first time indicated that in the course of an interview 12 by an employee of the licensee, he had been told something 13 which we had not seen before in this proceeding nor had 14 previously been reported, and as the witness indicated -- a s 15 our witness indica ted yesterday on the record, our witness 16 was confronted with this testimony by an NRC witness.
17 I do not know the basis for the challenge to the 18 integrity of the process, but I assume that it must be the 19 sequestration order which has been set down in this l
20 proceeding.
There was considerable discussion yesterday 21 about the sequestration orcer, and my position on it, I i
l 22 think, was made clear at that point in time.
I know of no 23 other instance that has been the subject of discussion 24 previously in this proceeding, and I am confident about the 25 propriety of counsel's role in that instance.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
26,792 I oppose with the strongest feelings the raising 2 of this motion, and I obviously object to its being granted.
MR. COLDBERG4 The staff also opposes the motion 3
4 to stay this proceeding pending an evidentiary hearing on 5 the integrity of the process due to the Aamodt's allegation 6 of improper conduct between licensee's counsel and 7 witnesses.
To the extent that that motion is premised on 8 the Aamodt's perceived violation of the sequestration order 9 by licensee 's counsel, I can state that based on my 10 knowledge of the f acts which were brought to light yesterday 11 during the hearing, it is the staff's opinion that there is 12 no basis whatsoever for an allegation that the licensee's 13 counsel has viciated the terms or spirit of the 14 sequestration order.
15 I take my professional responsibilities very 16 seriously, and I voice strong objection to even the 17 slightest suggestion that I or any other staff counsel in 18 this proceeding might not have behaved properly.
19 With respect to Mr. Aamodt's statement that he l
20 believed it was nacessary to inquire into the nature and 21 extent of contacts with witnesses by licensee's counsel and 22 perhaps staf f counsel, I can say, first o f all, that I have 23 heard no f act at all which even suggest, which even allege l
24 any impropriety on the part of staff counsel in this 25 proceeding.
If Mr. Aamodt has any facts concerning any ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. O.C. 2 % 24 (202) 554-2345
26,793 i impropriety by staf f counsel, then he ought to state those 1
2 f acts, and not even imply improper conduct without any basis 3 vhatsoever.
With respect to the sequestration order, there has 5 been no violation of either the terms or the spirit of that 6 sequestration order by any staff counsel in this 7 proceeding.
I wish to express my strongest objection to the 8
9 utterly baseless accusations which have been made and the 10 utterly baseless motion which has been made to stay this 11 proceeding.
I oppose it, and I particularly object to the 12 naked implication that there might be impropriety on the 13 part of staff counsel.
14 HR. ADLERs The Commonwealth also opposes the 15 motion to st ay.
Throughout th e restart proceedings, the 16 Commonwealth's position has been that there ought to be a 17 complete, fair, but expeditious resolution of all issues, 18 and we view the motion to stay with great seriousness and 19 would only support it with very, very strong reasons in its 20 f avor which I do not feel are apparent here.
21 Wi th respect to licensee's counsel, we have 22 indications of what I view to be a good faith dispute on one 23 limited instance, f reely discussed by licensee's counsel.
24 We have a representation f rom licensee's counsel that this i
25 was in f act the only instance, and he provided his reasons ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE.. S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
t 26,7914 1 for it.
I have no f acts, no evidence to dispute his 2 representations that there are no other instances purely 3 hypothetically, assuming the parties who believe the 4 communication to be improper, to be correct, and I emphasize 5 tha t the Commonwealth is not taking a position on that issue 6 at this time.
7 I question whether there is a remedy that would 8 result from a stayed proceeding that is not already 9 available to the Special Master.
I can see none that would 10 varrant the serious remedy of staying the proceeding.
11 With respect to staff counsel, I agree completely 12 with staff counsel's commen ts.
I have absolutely no basis, 13 no facts on which to conclude that any impropriety by staff 14 counsel to this proceeding occurred.
15 (Pause.)
16 17 18 19 I
20 21 22 23 24 25 l
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASNINGToN. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
26,795 HR. AAMODT:
We also have very strong feelings.
3 2 ge have put a great deal of effort into the hearing, as has 3 everyone, to be at every turn coming up dry when we asked 4 questions relative to did you see, did you hear, where did 5 the rumor come from.
There have been no ansvers.
6 Yesterday counsel for the Licensee had the 7 opportunity to allow us to examine a witness, Witness P, as 8 to whether the counsel's preparation of the witness was also 9 in good faith, and he declined to let us do it.
I make no 10 allegations relative to the staf f.
I make no further 11 allegations relative to the Licensee.
12 I am saying that there is a minimum showing or a 13 showing that says we have one indication here of something 14 -- where witnesses have been coached, and the only credible 15 explanation that I can come up with for why we have had 16every witness tell us no, I did not see, no, I cannot 17 remember his name, no I did not get the phone call, no, I 18 never heard the rumor.
Well, somebody talked to somebody, 19 and I would like to know who.
20 Now, as is rightf ully pointed out, we are most 21 certainly not attorneys.
I understand, however, that we can 22 -- we also would like to have this proceeding move as 23 expeditiously as it possibly can.
But pechaps you can judge 24 ex parte and we can handle it that way.
25 Just one other point, if I might, on the matter.
l i
I I
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20J24 (202) 554 2345
26,796 3 gith regard to P, particularly, I would just like to make 2 the point that P had a remarkable change in memory from the 3 time of his deposition until the time of his appearing as a 4 witness yesterday, and that could well be noted fron reading 5 the deposition and reading the record.
Perhaps my wife has a few more things she would 6
7 like to say.
MRS. AAMODTs I just wanted to say, Judge g
9 Hilhollin, that the reason I asked the question was that I 10 had studied P 's deposition, and as well as having deposing 11 him and questioned him, and my remembrance of Mr. P was that 12 he did not have memory for recent events.
For instance, on 13 pages 10 and 20 of his deposition, he could not remember 14 what tests he had taken home during the OARP, whether he had 15 only taken home tests when he was will.
He could not 18 remember what training he had between the OARP and the 17 October examination, could not remember it at all.
18 Yesterday when he was asked the question about the i
19 possible solicitation of a question by DD, he had an 20 extremely detailed version of the event, although he had i
21 a ttached no significan<:e to it.
The quickness with which he u responded and the detail with which he responded, exactly l
23 wha t Mr. Baci's -- how the sequencing of questions were l
24 caused me to question that that was actually his view of 25 what had happened at the 'ime.
l l
l 6
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, nn vicr2ncmn wD a m em n e onmn am ana.nn a e
26,797 JUDGE MILHOLLINs The re co rd should reflect that 2 yesterday af ternoon there was an extensive discussion off 3 the record among the parties and myself concerning the 4 conduct of the Licensee's counsel with respect to the 5 sequestration order.
This discussion was limited to one 6 instance, or I should say one occurrence. I believe that 7 that is the only occurrence which took place.
Thit is, I 8 believe that in only one instance did Licensee 's counsel 9 take any step which might be interpreted as inconsistent to with the sequestration order.
I believe that the counsel 11 for the Licensee took the step which was taken in good faith 12 based upon that counsel's interpretation of the 13 sequestration order.
14 I do not believe tha t the interest of justice l
15 would be served by g ra n tin g the motion, so the motion is 16 denied.
I do not think that I could sustain such a motion l
17 without a very clear showing, a clear offer of proof of i
l 18 improprieties, and no such offer has been me.de.
l l
19 I think that a f air view of the demeanor and 20 content of the evidence we have received from several 21 witnesses would be that their testimony is of little value.
ZZ I have been very disappointed by the quality and cha racter ZI of the testimony by several of the witnesses who have l
24 appeared in this proceeding. However, it is not fair to 25 teason that any counsel is responsible for the quality of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
26,790 L,
1 that testimony.
So the motion is denied.
t MR. AAMODT:
Judge Milhollin, is it appropria te to 2
i 3 say anything relative to that?
)
JUDGE SILHOLLIN:
To my denial?
4 MR. AAHODT:
Yes.
The point that I wanted to make 5
6 was that we viewed the incident yesterday as not in itself 7 having the inferences of impropriety that we have attached 8 to it here.
The concern was that it appeared to us to 9 indicate that by some mechanism which we cannot put our to finger on, there has been coaching of witnesses and here was 11 on example, and therefore the question of preparing 12 witnesses is one that we feel should be looked at very 13 carefully.
14 JUDGE HILHOLLIN:
I interpret your remarks to be 15 that you have been disappointed at the general --
16 MR. AAHODTa Candor.
17 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
-- general degree of candor 18 which you have observed in the witnesses as they have come 19 on the stand.
I would suggest to you that it is a very 20 serious matter to imply tha t that pattern is the fault of an 21 attorney.
I have denied your motion for a number of 22 reasons.
There is no practicable remedy -- well, let me M take that back.
I do not believe that the remedy you 24 suggest is appropriate.
25 For what it is worth, I have not been pleased by f
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 e
26 799 0
and I think you can conclude 1 the quality of the testimony, l
2 from your observation of the way this proceeding has gone 3 foreward that I have exerted a great deal of effort in the 4 direction of getting to the truth in this particular 8
5 subject.
I do not think granting your motion is a step in 6 the direction of my goal in getting to the truth insof ar as 7 ve have not been able to get there so far.
MR. AAMODTs Have you a suggestion as to what we 8
9 sight do to help get there?
JUDGE MILHOLLINs No. It is not really appropriate io 11 for me to make those suggestions.
I have denied your 12 notion.
I have said as much as I properly can say, perhaps 13 a little more than I might have said, and I am not going 'to i
14 say any more.
15 Does any party have further remarks on this 16 subject?
17 (N o response.)
18
'J o uld the parties like a break before we go l
19 f orward with the next witness?
Shall we take a short break?
20 (Recess.)
21 JUDGE MILHOLLIN:
ZZ MR. BLAKE:
Judge Milhollin, I wonder if you might i
23 make your normal sta teme n t with regard to in camera.
l 24 JUDGE MILHOLLINs Sure.
25 I notice that Mr. U has taken the witness sta nd.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
?
- ?- J'y
.g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T2 C210 P1:?$
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judge Gary L. Milhollin as Special Master g\\TC't.6)01232 r
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-289 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
(Restart)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
(Reopened Proceeding)
Station, Unit 1)
)
/~7/g MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY THE HEARING Norman and Marjorie Aamodt, who are intervenors in this proceeding, moved on December 10, 1981, to stay the evidentiary hearing.
They wished to have the hearing stayed pending an investigation of allegedly inappropriate communications between Licensee's counsel and certain witnesses. The motion was made on the record while the hearing was in progress. The Licensee, the NRC Staff, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania opposed the motion and stated their reasons on the record.
The motion was then denied from the bench.
(Tr. 26,788 to 26,799).
The Aamodts now request, by a written motion dated January 8, 1982, that the denial be reconsidered. Also, in the event that the motion is not granted after reconsideration, they request that the motion be certified to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
The motion was denied on December 10 because the relief requested, which was a stay of the hearing pending a collateral proceeding on the conduct of Licensee's counsel, was entirely disproportionate to the facts upon which the relief was sought.
The facts consist of one communication, which occurred when Licensee's counsel informed two sequestered witnesses of the testimony 0 20d ZOd @ -
7
? of a third witness who had been presented by the NRC Staff.
This third witness was not sequestered. The Licensee's counsel based his action upon his desire to obtain information useful in cross examination and upon his interpretation of the order sequestering witnesses (Special Master's Seques-tration Order of November 12,1981).
I am still of the opinion that Licensee's counsel acted in good faith, and according to an interpretation of the Se-questration Order which does not violate its literal terms.
Nothing in the Aamodts' motion for reconsideration causes me to change my mind.
With respect to the Aamodts' additional motion to certify this question to the Licensing Board, it is obvious that the Aamodts have not met the require-ments for interlocutory appeal set out in 10 CFR 52.730(f). Those requirements were adopted by the Licensing Board for this proceeding (Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order of September 14,1981).
For the reasons stated previously on the record, and those stated above, both of the A~amodts' motions are hereby denied.
W Gary L. Gilhollin g
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th. day of February,1982
- -.